Talk:Astrology/Archive 9

Astrology, Science and causality
I have my doubts regarding the reference from David Cochrane,. Is that a published work, or only posted on an enthusiast's site?

Also, this sentence "One outstanding issue is the lack of an accepted astrological mechanism that would account for the supposed effects of celestial bodies on terrestrial affairs, although a similar objection could be made to the most basic physical and astronomical theories as well" is completely misleading.

It's not a similar objection, because gravity, unlike astrology, has been proven to influence objects. So it's not at all a supposed effect, but unlike astrology, it's an actual, observable effect. So, the statement a similar objection could be made to the most basic physical and astronomical theories as well is entirely misleading. I think we should rephrase the second sentence (or perhaps even remove it) Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  05:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed it. It's a silly, misleading caveat. Marskell 06:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The intent of the quote, quite obviously, is that if basic physical and astronomical theories lack a mechanism but are only empirically observed, then the same should also be allowed for astrology. Lack of mechanism is an invalid argument. Maybe there is a better way to reword this important statement. Piper Almanac 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of science is a mathematical formulation of observed behaviour. There is no traditional cause-and-effect in modern science, I thought you guys knew that. Aquirata 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "A fundamental interaction is a mechanism by which particles interact with each other, and which cannot be explained by another more fundamental interaction. Every observed physical phenomenon, from galaxies colliding with each other to quarks jiggling around inside a proton, can thus be explained by these interactions. Because of their fundamental importance, understanding of these interactions has occupied the attention of physicists for over half a century and continues to do so." Marskell 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you wish to explain what 'mass' is, what 'force' is, and how particles 'interact' with each other. Quantum mechanics would be a good subject to study. Aquirata 17:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, mass is energy. The rest of it is just philosophizing. I'm not suggesting an "ultimate why" as to the forces as they are. But they are mechanisms. Astrology lacks one. Marskell 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They are not mechanisms but mathematical formulations. Astrology doesn't have the same formulation, but both lack a mechanism. Aquirata 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they are mechanisms as Marksell said. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As a physicist, I point out that there are three theories of gravity. In Newton's and Einstein's theories, gravity is not a causal mechanism, but a describable, predictable phenomenon. Only quantum gravitational theory treats it as a causal mechanism, and as yet, quantum gravitation theory has not attained a satisfactory form. Not all science deals with mechanistic causes, a lot of it is about correlation and, where possible, experimental reproducibility of observable phenomena. As yet astronomy and cosmology do not permit a great deal of experimental reproducibility, and this has to be borne in mind when looking for the reasons why astrology shouldn't count as science. 01:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Regarding your doubts about the article by David Cochrane, here is a response from David Cochrane: This article is similar, but not identical, to the content in the books "Astrology for the 21st Century" and "AstroLocality Magic" that I authored and are published by Cosmic Patterns. The two lines of text that I added were promptly removed the next day. It is unfortunate that the information that I added has been removed because there are astrological researchers who have found that a very sophisticated approach to astrological research is showing hopeful signs, as described in more detail in these books, and the two pilot studies that I conducted are described in the books. BTW, I am more than an enthusiast, with a very long resume of professional activities in astrology. ---


 * The above (unsigned) comment is by David Cochrane. He is as reputable a source as they come. Aquirata 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

- I just added the following text to the Astrology, Science, and Causality section: "Some astrologers, on the other hand, do believe that astrology is amenable to the scientific method, given sufficiently sophisticated analytical methods, and they cite pilot studies supporting this view." with a reference to an article in the ISAR Journal. I hope this is in better taste and more agreeable to all. DavidCochrane 02:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's good, thanks. Aquirata 10:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that what I added was good but Vorpal Blade excised the entire paragrah. Also in the discussion of history, I see strong interest in gutting more of the science in favor of more history - a bad idea in my opinion, but here is a resolution to the problem: I think there needs to be a separate article on astrology, science, and causality so the paragraph that Vorpal Blade removed could be put in the separate article along with more information on astrology and science. Then if the consensus is to remove some science in favor of history, then at least the astrology and science information will be in the separate article. DavidCochrane 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * David, Your suggestion is very plausible. In fact, we used to have an article called Objective validity of astrology, but the militant faction (who like to call themselves skeptics but are in fact extreme materialist cynics) had it removed because they couldn't handle seeing so much evidence in favour of astrology. The official explanation was that the article was a POV fork. The article was suggested for deletion in the first place by our very own User:Marskell via a process called WP:AFD. On the AfD page, editors from all walks of life (i.e. the vast majority of them without any clue about astrology, let alone scientific research into it) had their say about the page. Roughly 70% voted for deletion, 30% for keeping, the main argument being the already mentioned POV fork (mostly without explanation or supporting arguments). Apparently, 75% or above in favour of deletion will result in automatic deletion, 67% or below in automatic keeping. The administrator responsible for taking care of the AfD simply took these opinions at face value and, without looking at the article or having an opinion on it, decided for deletion.
 * You will notice as you edit WP that the same political games are being played here as everywhere else in life. When short on rational arguments and sources supporting their view, cynics (some call them pseudoskeptics) will resort to any means whatsoever to achieve their end. They will typically try to pull the rug from underneath the people they perceive to be in their way. This generally takes the form of Request for Comments or Dispute Resolutions. Marskell has initiated an RfC on me a while ago (without any notable success), and he and User:Jefffire are again talking about DR to elevate their fight against big bad mystics (see below). They are also very good at quoting WP policies and putting their own interpretation on them in support of their objectives. Many administrators are also from this camp, so they have "official" backing in doing this. The existence of the Pseudoscience category, directly contradicting WP:NPOV, is ample evidence for the inherent bias of the WP community. A quick look at he Pseudoscience FAQ will make it obvious which side of the argument WP "consensus" is on.
 * The Objective validity of astrology article has disappeared without a trace from WP, but you can have a look here: . I would certainly support the creation of a new article along the lines you suggest, but the cynics will no doubt vehemently oppose it. Aquirata 12:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As a member of the "militant faction" I must say your tendentiousness has reached new heights in the above post Aquirata. Sorry I bother you so much. The request for mediation is ready—it's long past time we had mediation here. Re-creating something like OVA is simply going to elevate the current shitstorm into another hurricane. Let's agree to the mediation and see where it goes. Marskell 13:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is very difficult to maintain civility in the face of posts like Aquirata's above, but it is essential. The amount of abuse Marskell has taken has been beyond the pail, and he is putting up with it far better than most other people would, and for that I commend him. I hope that mediation will help put an end to this sorry situation. Jefffire 15:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Correlation to the personality tests
There is a sentence which says, astrology makes no claim of correlation to the personality tests. Can that be verified or sourced? I think, common sense says, astrology should correlate to personality tests if astrology works. The only way to experimentally test if an astrological prediction using natal charts on personality works, is to see if the prediction matches with what the client thinks on his own personality.

Then, the statement self-reported views of themselves in questionnaires may be flawed is a very general blanket and misleading statement. Personality tests like the California Personality Inventory (used in the nature study) are widely believed to be a very accurate self-assessment. So, the statement self-reported views of themselves in questionnaires may be flawed should be reworded or changed to include the fact that there are accurate personality tests as well. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  06:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the reference, where this is clearly stated. Aquirata 09:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the reference, and I didn't find anything clearly stated. Can you point out exactly what is clearly stated in the reference? Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  11:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The criticism is clearly OR. Unless it can be source it has no place here. Jefffire 15:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is OR to assume that astrology and personality tests measure the same thing. Astrology and personality tests may each accurately measure different things. Piper Almanac 18:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Astrology makes predictions on personality. Personality tests make predictions on personality. So, when the personality tests are accurate like the California Personality Inventory, you would expect astrological predictions to correlate with personality tests, if astrology works. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  14:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Prove it, or in the spirit of Wikipedia, verify it. Jefffire 12:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, a total lack of understanding the issues. Personality cannot be reduced to simplistic ideas. Science as it stands today cannot measure personality. So personality tests and inventories have absolutely nothing to do with astrology. Aquirata 10:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You said "Science as it stands today cannot measure personality". That is clearly wrong. We can verify it with

Then VERIFY IT! Jefffire 12:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We did but some people insist on removing that ref. Aquirata 12:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This reference does not say that disproof is made more difficult, that is your OR, which will be removed. Jefffire 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Elwell
The sentence According to Dennis Elwell, Dean's actual purpose in producing this book was "to undermine astrology’s fundamental tenets... behind the smoke screen of reviewing the literature.". What's the purpose of including this line? To me, it appears irelevant to the previous statements, and a baseless accusation. Also, there is no continuity from the two lines before this. And, if this is only a personal view by Dennis Elwell, why are we including it in the article? Unless other astrologers also make this accusation, I think it would qualify as an extreme minority view and shouldn't be included(as per WP:NPOV) Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  06:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed the two sentences, which only amount to bickering. Aquirata 09:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with a shorter version: "Dean himself has suggested that continued interest in astrology is based on intuition and gullibility, though his analyses have been criticized by astrologers as agenda-driven." If we're going to introduce him his basic viewpoint on the discipline needs to be clear. Marskell 09:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is good, although the placement of this sentence may not be the best. Aquirata 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Serious deterioration of page
OK guys, please stop changing the article in leaps and bounds again without discussion. We hads a fairly good version yesterday with very few issues, and most of them minor. You will have to be patient and wait for responses here to your objections. Let me answer each one of them and so provide justification for slowing down this process. Aquirata 08:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "silly caveat", please read WP's own article on causality:
 * "Causality is hard to interpret in many different physical theories. One problem is typified by the moon's gravity. It isn't accurate to say, "the moon exerts a gravitic pull and then the tides rise." In Newtonian mechanics gravity, rather, is a law expressing a constant observable relationship among masses, and the movement of the tides is an example of that relationship. There are no discrete events or "pulls" that can be said to precede the rising of tides."


 * The "unfair generalisation" can be multi-sourced, give me time.
 * Mars effect is undisputed, you (Vorpal blade) are citing papers three years earlier than the latest research published. Please be familiar with this complicated subject before making such changes.
 * I think that covers the major changes resulting in a serious deterioration in quality. Aquirata 08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I think you are assuming bad faith, and we are clear with the complicated subject. Contrary to what you claim, the relationship of Mars effect to astrology is widely disputed (please do look at the mars effect article in wikipedia) and I linked a paper which even explains the origin of the bias, which you removed. The latest "research" doesn't address the "throw-away" bias in the previous research, or refute the findings of CFEPP study. I think you are applying your interpretation in these results, and that violates WP:OR Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  10:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What's making the page deteriorate is this burning need you and Piper have to qualify or invert every matter of fact statement that is critical of astrology. The comment on the "most basic physical and astronomical theories" is just stupid and a citation from a guy hawking astrology software doesn't make it less so. From our own page: "The insights of the theory of special relativity confirmed the assumption of causality, but they made the meaning of the word "precede" observer-dependent." A gravitational cause doesn't "precede" an effect because its range is infinite and because masses interact with each other rather than the larger body "controlling" the other, as ordinary descriptions often have it (it's more accurate to say "the Earth and Sun revolve around their common center of mass" than "the Earth revolves around the Sun"). Nothing in this indicates a "lack" of a mechanism. Marskell 09:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A more acceptable article to present the issue of causality might be . Astrophysicist Victor Mansfield sums up the problem confronting science and what it means to astrology as follows: "Astonishingly, this quantum view is not merely an artifact of its current mathematical formulation. Analysis and experiments, independent of the present formulation of quantum mechanics, show that nature is so deeply acausal and nonlocal that any future replacement for quantum mechanics must have nonlocal connections that work without any exchange of energy or information between the parts of the correlated system-without any causal connection. This is an extraordinary fact that should play a central role in any approach to understanding nature in general and astrology in particular. This is a long way from the Cartesian/Newtonian view at the basis of current attempts at formulating a physical mechanism for astrological influence."
 * Piper Almanac 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This page would benefit from becoming an historical view of astrology rather than an epistemic one. There is no viable argument that  astrology is anything other than a pseudoscience (e.g. non-falsifiable in many cases). Attempts to legitimize it use arcane references or invoke speculative "future" knowledge or complex physics theories - indeed it seems that a blanket of "quantum physics" can be used to explain just about anything. Instead of piecing together unrelated data to support an esoteric explanation of astrology, wouldn't it be better to become an astromomer, learn all we can about the universe, and then formulate a simple model for the masses and call it astrology? =) For example, look at the explanation of "electron clouds" in an elementary science text-book and compare that to Molecular Orbital theory in a university-level inorganic chemistry book. The former is an incorrect, or at least incomplete, view of atomic electron interactions but serves as an elementary model by which one can gradually learn advanced theory. So instead of getting in a giant snit, explore astrology in the context of history rather than that of science, and your problem is solved. Any attempt to legitimize something not commonly held as fact will result in bickering, and therefore a crappy wiki article. Taken from the viewpoint of a cultural phenomenon (like wiki discussions of world religions, cults, memes, organizations, fads, or whatever) there is no controversy.


 * I believe our anonymous commentator is correct - all of these odd subjects would be better off approached from a historical standpoint. But even that will not end controversy or bickering because all weird subjects attract believers, and some of the beliefs include that about the history (which often cannot be substantiated, particularly in cases of topics dealing with pre-literary history.)  Zeusnoos 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith
I may be mistaken in saying this, and if I'm mistaken, I sincerely apologize. But, I think User:Aquirata's revert was in bad faith. I suggest that User:Aquirata discuss his problems before reverting them. In my opinion, I don't think it's correct to say "give me time" and remove a valid sourced statement. It should be there until you can find more examples. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  10:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, your multisources do not mention any other "scientific organizations". The only problem seems to be with CSICOP and the Mars effect. And there's a (CRYBABY response to that as well). You say "certain scientific organizations". Can you name 5 scientific organizations being criticized? I suggest we remove this unfair generalization, to name the organisations. Instead, if you do find a source which critizes many scientific organisations, then I agree with you that this generalization can be made. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  10:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What's unfair? "Certain" organizations is what it says, not "all" organizations, It's absolutely true that "certain" organizations criticize astrology, just like "certain" cars run on solar power, though I can't name five. Doovinator 11:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's my point. I think, there's only a single organizzation here (as the refs seem tosuggest), and that's CSICOP. Unless you can come up with a source which names many more organizations, it's the generalization which is unfair, don't you think?  Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  12:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, there may or may not be more; it's ambiguous, but acceptable, in my view. Doovinator 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your viewpoint, but it ain't acceptable in my view. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  06:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming bad faith is against WP:AGF. Aquirata 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But witnessing it being displayed, by you, is not. Why don't you discuss your deletes in the talk page, before you delete it? Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nature
Regarding Nature, it's essential to mention that it's a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal to highlight the credibility & hence importance) of that research, compared to other astrological researches published in non-scientific journals. So, I'm going to put that in again. This is not "defending" Nature, but showing the importance of that research. Aquirata, if you have a problem with this, discuss it here before you revert. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  11:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nature does pretty much zippo in astrological research. It's like citing Gourmet on global warming. Both are prestigious, important journals in their field, both commenting on something way out of their pond. Doovinator 12:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. Nature is excellent at reporting scientific research in any topic. In this case it happens to be astrology. So your analogy isn't right. Almost everything can be looked from a scientific perspective, and there's little which is more credible in "scientific research in astrology" than Nature. In fact, I'd say that the nature article is much more credible than any other research in astrology, because of the stringent quality checking and the fact that only sufficiently ground-breaking research is considered.  Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The odd thing to me is that science, which is based on observation alone and not at all on authority, now spends more time arguing over authority than doing any kind of ground-breaking research. Stringent quality checking and the like is great for weeding out frauds; witness the Korean cloning scandal, but it's not research. Doovinator 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What the Dickens are you talking about? There is now more "groundbreaking" research going on than before and it is increasing all the time. There is also very little argueing over authority in comparison, only validity. The argueing is happening here, not there, since the foundation of Wikipedia is authority. Jefffire 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Research requires valid hypotheses. In the case of the Shawn Carlson test, there were a few astrologers who refused to participate because of flaws in the hypothesis. Nature did not report these flaws because the editors do not understand astrology or what a valid hypothesis would be. The test was severely criticized by Hans Eysenck. Piper Almanac 18:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nature is a non-contender when it comes to astrological research. A top scientific journal is not an authority on everything on Earth just like you wouldn't expect the same from a top astrological magazine. Aquirata 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Vorpal blade, read the Talk page, don't just use it! Aquirata 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nature is a super contender when it comes to "scientific research on astrology". A top scientific researcg journal is an authority on scientific research on anysubject. Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a joke, right? When the editors and the contributors peer-reviewing articles have no knowledge of astrology, they will have no clue as to the relevance and accuracy of the article being submitted. This was witnessed by the badly flawed Shawn Carlson tests being accepted, which was criticised from left and right (I shall find a few refs for that for later inclusion in the article). They have since learned not to publish any astrological material. So Nature is absolutely no authority on any research into astrology, scientific or not. Aquirata 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No joke at all. You don't need to know anything about astrology to test if its predictions work. If someone says based on A, becuase of blah...blah..yadda..yadda B and C should be same, you don't need to know the "blah...blah..yadda..yadda" to see if B is the same as C. Meanwhile, I'll find a few refs which says why the objections to the Calson test are silly. It's not that they didn't learn not to publish, but the fact that the other researches didn't have sufficent quality as per the peer review. This is exactly why we should include peer review. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So yes, it was a joke. It will be hard to belabour this point as it's obvious you have absolutely no knowledge of astrology. Many holding the same untenable view have come and gone. Aquirata 14:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's only your opinion, which in this case is a minority opinion. But I'm curious, why is it untenable? Many contributors would consider it as tenable. Thank science to the ones who didn't come and go! Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  14:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to ask why it's untenable to make claims on a subject without knowing anything about it? Aquirata 10:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm curious to know why you regard experimental evidence, which requires no knowledge of astrology, as untenable. Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  04:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please tell me about experimental evidence on astrology that doesn't presuppose astrological knowledge. Aquirata 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Any claim can be tested in the absence of further knowledge on the subject. Claim having foo in you sign at birth increases the likely-hood of being fooist? That can be objectively tested. This is very basic application of the scientific method. Jefffire 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what you mean by you[r] sign at birth. Aquirata 10:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick lunge to the left, and he evades! siafu 13:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put siafu. As everyone who took the time to follow the link will know, foo is a philosophical place holder to show the exact nature of the prediction is irrelevent. What matters is that it will be testable. Jefffire 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you answer my question please? I cannot determine the validity of your claim without having this clarification. Aquirata 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review suggestions
These points were brought up by User:RJHall in the peer review.
 * What's the point of the Flammarion woodcut? How's it related to astrology? Perhaps we could replace it by a sample natal chart? I've deleted the Flammarion woodcut pic.


 * The "See also" section seems overly long. Perhaps the list can be organized in some manner and sectioned up in a table based on sub-topic? Also if any of those topics are already listed in the above, they could be removed.


 * a brief summary section or table on the beliefs associated with the different bodies in the solar system, particularly their supposed effects. We would require an astrologer, or an expert on the subject to write this. We could base this on Solar system in astrology. Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Vorpal. I would like to keep the Flammarion woodcut pic for a couple of reasons.  The first is that if we were to simply put a horoscopic chart there in its place, that wouldn't be representative of all of the different forms of astrology in the article because not all forms of astrology are horoscopic, or use the same reference points or even birth charts.  So, we would only be pandering to one form of astrology.  The second issue is that it is the only piece of media that I have found that has some intimations of an underlying astrological meaning by hinting at some sort of link between man and the cosmos.  I think that the strength lies in its subtlety.  Surely if you came up with something that trumped the Flammarion picture in the scope of its representation, and that everyone agreed with, then we would go with that instead.  But I would rather go with the Flammarion picture than nothing right now until something better is put forward.


 * We need to create some sort of all-inclusive template for the See Also section. This will be kind of difficult because of all of the different traditions and techniques that need to be covered, but I think that the Astrology Project will get to it before too long.


 * As far as the meanings of the planets go, I think that it would be best if we left that out due to length restrictions. The reasons that I say this is because the meanings associated with each planet, and the differences between the different traditions of astrology would ensure that it would be an overly long section that still excludes several traditions.  On the other hand, I've never really cared much for a few of the later sections of the article such as 'Language' and 'Astrology as a descriptive language for the mind', so maybe there would be a little bit of room for these additions if those areas were done away with.  It would still run the risk of being a pretty poor treatment of the planets though and I would still have to advise against it from the perspective of someone who has studied the different traditions and knows how diverse they can be. --Chris Brennan 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chris Brennan that the woodcut is acceptable as it conveys mystery but is not aligned to a particular approach to astrology. Meanings of the planets etc are already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia under the different astrological approaches. We would be adding western bias by covering it in the main article. Lumos3 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some astrologers find the Flammarion woodcut objectionable because it is not specifically astrological, of uncertain origin, and used ad nauseam. Chris makes a good point though that there may not be anything better. I wish there were.


 * I don't think planet descriptions should go in this lead artlcle, but there could be a See Also link to a planets page. The planets are generally considered as urges, "The planets impel..." Piper Almanac 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My eyes get weary wading through the debris that the underinformed and debunkers keep spewing on my favorite articles (Astrology, Supernatural, Progressive Politics, Dictatorship), but what's really get my gall on the Astrology pages are the freshmen astronomy students and Sidereal (Vedic) "Astrologers" venting their mis-information on these pages. Zodiac Signs = TROPICAL (legitimate) astrology. Arbitrary star constellations = bullshit. Andrew Homer 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, star constellations of arbitrary sizes are absolutely crap from an astrological standpoint, and tropical is legitimate, but let's not be too quick to can standard sidereal astrology, based on constellations of equal length. I'm not a siderealist, but that doesn't mean I think it's crap. Doovinator 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I respect sidereal or Jyotish astrology, and astronomers, I wouldn't say that starry constellations have equal length. The problem with constellations is that they are imaginary and lack natural symmetry that is found in the other two astrological frames of reference, houses and aspects. They seem inconsistent in the minds of Western astrologers who use the tropical zodiac. Astrologers do look for patterns of natural organization. Piper Almanac 13:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree with including details on planets. Disagree with cutting the Flammarion pic (reinstated it as per majority opinion here). Agreed that the See also section should be better organised. Aquirata 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Moon and stock returns (again)
I've reinstated the Moon/stock returns research. Astrology has had a long and well-known association with stock market research. There is no known cause and effect to this Moon relationship and no explanation other than what has been advocated by astrology. Speculation about sleeplessness patterns, tides, etc. is OR. The first source cites a negative article, "The Moon was Full and Nothing Happened" by Kelly, Rotton, and Culver, inferring a refutation of the anti-astrological view. References do not need to declare themselves to be astrological in cases where they clearly are such.

For example, Gauquelin felt no need to mention in "Is there Really a Mars Effect" that it was astrology or Neoastrology. Similarly, Lois Rodden's book Modern Transits is a standard astrological textbook that is full of astrological interpretations, but astrology is not mentioned anywhere in the book. Piper Almanac 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an autographed copy of Modern Transits that Lois Rodden handed me at a party at Zip Dobyns' home in Los Angeles. What do you mean Lois doesn't mention astrology in her book?  Since that book does NOT pertain to the paragraph heading above, why even mention it?  That makes no sense.  To get back onto topic:  astrologer Crawford's market newletter has been continually rated as one of the top 3 forecaster publications year after year.  To get more serious into astrology & investments join the International Society of Business Astrologers (Copenhagen HQ).  Andrew Homer 16:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And I have added another ref for this topic. Aquirata 17:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No astrological claim made in the two research papers. "Bullandbearwise.com" looks about as reliable as the spam that shows up in my e-mail every morning. Removed.


 * And can I ask what your plan is for the sentence? Every possible claim you can find going in there? Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." I'd suggested rationalizing the sentence. Perhaps "physical traits, societal trends and geological events" or something like that with two refs for each. Marskell 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Claims
Added further claims, such as elections, climate change, Moon phase vs birth & death. Aquirata 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Going back to the great Astrology books that were published in the early '70s, my favorite validation for Astrology are the parallel lives of twins separated at birth. Try to "environment" that.  Andrew Homer 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Spiking the orange juice
Regarding again your almost amusing habit of inverting even the slightest criticism of astrology, I was thinking this. Change:


 * "Astrology has had a profound influence over the past few thousand years on Western and Eastern cultures" to
 * "Astrology has had a profound influence over the past few thousand years on Western and Eastern cultures. However, so have slavery and infanticide."

Would you mind?

That people object to a lack of mechanism is a fact. We can probably find astrological sources saying so. This "yes, but" you're demanding is unneeded, disingenuous, and actually reads as rather juvenile. Marskell 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The counterpoint to the 'mechanism' objection is relevant. Your example is not. Aquirata 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is intensitive. Any point introduced that's critical, the knee-jerk response is to grope for some way to invert it. This is a perfect example of not letting the facts speak for themselves. Marskell 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about:


 * "Astrology has had a profound influence over the past few thousand years on Western and Eastern cultures. However, so have slavery, infanticide, and Republicans: pludering pension funds, stealing Presidential elections, and delaying AIDS research."  Andrew Homer 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should focus on its topic. It isn't slavery, infanticide or Republicans. 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bobrick's The Fated Sky
Chris, you have removed this book, which I'm not familiar with (and the author's name was incorrect I believe). Amazon's reviews are very positive in general, and 52% buy the book after viewing its page (which is a very high ratio). In your opinion, do the inaccuracies outweigh the overall value of the book to justify removal? In other words, is the reader better off without knowing about this book? Aquirata 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that popularity alone was a reasonable gauge for the "overall value" of a book. siafu 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about popularity at all, and no connection was made to the overall value, anyway. Your point? Aquirata 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's all you talked about: positive reviews on Amazon, and good sales. Both of those are merely indications of popularity.  My point is that this does nothing to indicate that the book has any value at all-- the only thing that's been said that is indicative is that it's inaccurate. siafu 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all, you are misunderstanding me. Getting good reviews does not equal popularity. The fact that people decide to buy the book and not something else after viewing it on Amazon does not equal popularity. They both translate to perceived value. Sales volume or sales rank would correlate to popularity, but this is not at issue. My comment was directed at seemingly good perceived value at Amazon vs. Chris' evaluation. Aquirata 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I misunderstand so grossly. A sales figure, like the fact that 52% of people buy the book after viewing the page, is a measure of popularity only.  So too is the fact that it is reviewed positively.  The content of those reviews may be interesting to us, but the mere fact that they are generally positive is not.  However, it's also true that "perceived value" based on the perceptions of the public at large is no more useful in determining a book's overall value in terms of its factual accuracy and informativeness than popularity. siafu 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that there are a number of other books on the history of astrology written by astrologers and academics that don't make the same ridiculous mistakes that this book makes, I do think that people would be better off without knowing about the book because then the same blunders wont be repeated over and over again by astrologers and researchers alike over the coming decades. I would much rather recommend books by more serious scholars such as James Holden, David Pingree, Nick Campion, Peter Whitfield, or Jim Tester. Bobrick's book suffers from a number of issues such as an over reliance on secondary and tertiary sources, bogus citations, religious favoritism, overtly biased reporting to the point of fanboyism, and generally poor organization. One of the more egregious, if not hilarious, examples of the types of mistakes contained in this book is on pg. 20 when he starts talking about "Palchus" "On the morning of July 14, A.D. 479, a worried client sought out an Egyptian astrologer in Smyrna by the name of Palchus and, at 8:30 A.M., asked whether a ship that he was expecting from Alexandria, now way overdue, would eventually arrive safely, and, if so, when..." The problem with this story is that "Palchus" is merely a pseudonym of a late 14th century Byzantine astrologer-scribe named Eleutherius Zebelenus of Elis, and not a 5th century Eyptian astrologer, as Bobrick would have you to believe. The data is actually from a group of genuine charts from the 5th century that Elutherius gathered together and edited under the name of "Palchus", but it is ridiculous that Bobrick simply attempted to turn "Palchus" into a living Egyptian astrologer from the 5th century when this was merely a handle of this Byzantine scribe, not to mention the fact that these might not even be horary charts to begin with. If he had really done his homework he would have realized how faulty this statement was, in addition to a number of other statements. Although it is possible that he was aware of these issues and decided to leave them in anyways in the thought these little issues of ‘historical accuracy’ aren't that big of a deal, and that no one would notice anyways. Who knows? The majority of the astrological community doesn’t know that much about the history of astrology so its not like they are going to call him out on this, and actual scholars would drop the book after a couple of pages.

The astrological community was swooning over him for a little while last fall because he was supposedly a neutral historian who wrote a book that was going to be kind of favorable towards astrology, but that couldn't be further from the truth. He is so biased in his coverage of astrology that he actually makes mistakes in reporting the history of the subject because of his overt fondness of it. I hear that he is actually a student of John Frawley's which makes complete sense because the entire book reads as if it were written from the perspective of a 17th century Christian astrologer- even when it is talking about other traditions of astrology! Some might say that any book on the history of astrology written by an astrologer is going to be biased, but to that I would reply that they should compare Bobrick's work with the work of other astrologer/historians such as James Holden and Nick Campion and then you will understand the difference. There is a line between reporting about something that you actually practice and perhaps endorse, versus this sort of overt fanboyism where you are simply raving about how great astrology is and downplaying anything negative to the point where you are actually skewing and distorting the historical record. I see no reason to advocate such an approach, especially in a place like Wikipedia where neutrality is the standard that we are trying to maintain.

Sorry for the rant. I've been meaning to write a review of this book since I read it earlier this year because I was so excited when it first came out but then so disappointed when I actually got into it. I guess that I will get around to writing that review here pretty soon. --Chris Brennan 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris, thanks for that detailed overview. Given your firm opinion on this, we should replace that cite with Holden, Campion or Curry, or whoever is appropriate in the context. Aquirata 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris, thanks from me, too. I didn't purchase this book because I couldn't find an academic review of it.    I do purchase books by astrologers to learn about the practice, but have typically found that practitioners who write about the history can't help but include an agenda in making astrology seem as favorable as possible.  A rare exception is Holden, but he seems to have some classical training.  Even Curry and Campion's works were disappointing because their biases show in their research.  On the other hand, it's distracting when writers of history of ancient beliefs add arguments or commentary on why the belief is silly in modern times.  I just want the facts, not whether or not it's stupid to believe in something. Zeusnoos 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. On Palchus, Pingree thought Eleutherius was identifying Abu Mashar with this name. So the question might then be how much of the material is 14th century and how much is Abu Mashar. Zeusnoos 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've actually been thinking that maybe we shouldn't have that section in the first place because of issues such as this, and also because any books placed on that list seem to act as a sort of endorsement of a particular position, or tradition, or school of astrology. I mean, I personally like all of the books on the list right now, but that is just because they sort of cater to my own astrological tastes, but that isn't necessarily true for other people.  So eventually, unless we expand that list considerably (which I don't think that we should do), we are going to end up discriminating against certain traditions or types of astrology just by the fact that we have putting some books in while leaving others out due to space restrictions.  I mean, I have a pretty good reason for preferring that some other book replaces Bobrick's book due to specific mistakes inherent in it, but is there really a reason why we don't have a book on Indian astrology up there?  What about Chinese, Mesoamerican, Traditional astrology, etc.?  Do you get what I'm saying?  --Chris Brennan 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you can't include every single book ever written, but that's not a reason for tossing the rest. Doovinator 01:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just pointing out that the article is on the general topic of "astrology" and from the point of view of other traditions of astrology there are far more important books which should be on the recommended reading list. There is no book currently in existence which covers or even touches upon all of the different traditions and branches of astrology, so somehow you would have to narrow it down to one book to represent the entirety of each tradition in the interests of neutrality and length restriction issues, and it would still be a longer list than we need here.  Unfortunately we all know that there really isn't one book in any tradition which is ever really able to summarize everything from that period.  So... I would rather just get rid of it because it forces us to make the article biased.  Its not like we are supposed to have a recommended reading section, or that this is some sort of requirement or something.  Who are we to say which book best represent astrology as a whole? What do we say to those who want to put the major books of their tradition in the list?  'Get lost'? --Chris Brennan 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd put 2-3 books per section in the recommended list. The list will build just like any other portion of the article. Each of us has his own opinion, and eventually we'll get to some kind of a consensus. Aquirata 10:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

'Balance' and 'totallydisputed-section' flags
Marskell, you will need to verbalize some justification for these tags, otherwise they will be removed. Thanks! Aquirata 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My take is that many of the facts which are stated, especially from astrological sources are POV, dubious and can't be verified. Also, the article is POV pushing in favour of astrology because of you. That's why the balance tag. I support keeping the tag till your edits and deletions without discussion on the talk page are sorted out Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. Tags cannot be based on 'touch and feel'. Aquirata 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * These edits are unbalanced.,, , , , Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see any problems with them. Would you care to elaborate? Aquirata 14:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those edits, involve removal of words or critisisms and push the astrology POV. Want a case by case analysis? Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, you'll have to be more specific. Aquirata 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's my attempt.
 * First, in, by removing "supposed", you are implying that astrology works, which is disputed. This is POV pushing in favour of astrology, don't you agree?
 * Well, no, but it's a moot point now. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, in, you're making a factually inaccurate statement. You are implying that some of these claims have been published in mainstream scientific journals, which as Marksell pointed out, isn't true.
 * Sorry, but I thought Med Hypothesis was a mainstream scientific journal. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is mainstream, but it publishes hypotheses like the title says. It is for floating ideas and research directions, not for providing conclusions.  It can tell you what some people think of astrology, but not about astrology itself, which is supposedly the topic of this article.01:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And I would add in here, if your response is "ah ha, but this one is a mainstream journal!" then we should remove all the others and just leave that one. That's what's been demanded from the beginning. Marskell 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Not only mainstream scientific journals are reliable sources. In the context of astrology, they are not the best sources to use. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In, you're removing the importance and credibility of peer-reviewed research.
 * I have explained this already. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In, by removing valid critiscim, you're pushing the astrology POV.
 * The removal of this sentence was in response to the removal of the counterpoint. It is POV to represent only one side of an issue. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In, you're trying to discredit the scientific research, making an OR statement, and trying to imply that all personality tests are flawed. This is, IMHO, POV pushing
 * I am not trying to discredit personality tests. The validity of them has been questioned in mainstream scientific journals. The applicability of them to astrology has also been questioned. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You rightly note that their validity has been 'questioned', their applicability has been 'questioned'... and so what? Everything worth thinking about gets 'questioned'.  Mere questioning does not disprove anything.  Articles should be based on the results of research, not the mere raising of questions.01:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, is an irrelevant tangent, and has been already been discussed. The sole purpose of that sentence is to push the astrology POV.
 * What do you mean by irrelevant tangent? The objection that was raised against astrology has been raised against science numerous times. By leaving that out, the reader is mislead into believing that this objection is specific to astrology, which is not the case. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is quite specific. If you need more examples, tell me. I'll look into the older page history and find them. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you like wasting your time. Quoting parts of the article that are in question rather than concentrating on my edits would be even better. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the leg work Vorpal. Also:


 * Insisting that sources which make no mention of astrology should be used to support it.
 * I challenge you to find the word "science" in every scientific paper published. If you can't determine what astrology is, under what authority do you remove astrological material? Aquirata 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally throwing off due weight by deciding to devote a paragraph to quotes from astrologers this very day.
 * They happen to be scientists knowledgeable about astrology. Not too many of them you will find, so it's important to hear their views. Aquirata 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, at this point the section is totally disputed and the article as a whole is unbalanced. Marskell 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please identify parts in question. Aquirata 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The disputed tag remains. Of course, you feel you have an answer for everything, else there wouldn't be a dispute. Marskell 09:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but if you can only dispute the article in general, the tags will have to be removed. Aquirata 10:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I too must voice my objections. The POV being foisted onto the article by Aquirata has tipped it over the line. Jefffire 12:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be specific and avoid ad hominem attacks. Aquirata 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem is not a fallacy when the problem is in fact the person. Jefffire 12:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting interpretation of a policy. Aquirata 10:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewed
Why do you keep deleting "peer reviewed"? Your comment is that "rmv fluff and irrelevance". But it's not irrlevance. It shows the importance and the credibility of the research. Please, oh please discuss here before you make changes! You're (inadvertently?) insulting the work of other editors by deleting without discussing! Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Everybody knows that all scientific papers are peer-reviewed. It's like stating that "ball bearings contain globe-shaped balls. It is irrelevant information. We shouldn't be trying to fluff up statements to make them look better than they are. Aquirata 14:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Not all scientific papers are peer-reviewed. For an example, most scientific papers on astrology are not published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  14:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Scientific journals" - you surely knew that this is what was meant from the context? Aquirata 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Care to elaborate? Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've often wanted to remove some of the overreaching adjectives and commentary myself, and have edited some lately that seemed redundant as well as overreaching. When the writing strains a little to hard to make a point it actually dilutes its effectiveness. Both sides are occasionally guilty. Adding "peer reviewed" to Nature makes it seem like trying to milk the one source article that made it there for every last drop of credibility and substance. The strain shows and it's a bit undignified if nothing else. "Science journals" has a link and so does Nature. Piper Almanac 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, you're taking this as an undignified attack on astrology. What I'm trying to show by including "reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal" is the importance and credibility of this scientific research on astrology compared to other similar researches. I think, the fact that this research is the only one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is essential to this section. I can live with it as it stands now, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aquarita is insisting on "Not all of these claims have been published in mainstream scientific journals" rather than none because he wants to mislead the reader. But no, sorry, we can't point out Nature is peer-reviewed? C'mon. Marskell 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming bad faith is against WP:AGF. As I have pointed out several times, Med Hypotheses appears to be a MSJ. Aquirata 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mars effect critiscims
This discussion was discontinued. What about the the researches that showed that the "Mars effect" was biased, such as the "throw-away" bias research, the CFEPP study and the claims that astrology has no relation to the mars effect? May I reinlcude them with sources? That was again deleted without any consensus being reached. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  17:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If there going to be deleted we should delete Ertel as well and simply leave "numerous studies claiming to replicate or refute it". Perhaps cite each of the verbs with one of the studies. Marskell 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We should use the latest sources we can find, and Ertel's is the latest. It applies citation analysis to all the prior studies and found results, the "eminence effect". There has been some detailed response by Dean, answered by Ertel, but this was just speculation as to possible demographic factors that might have caused the eminence effect. This just happens to be where things stand now. Piper Almanac 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are we using alcoholism from the 80s when Chris provided a quote from a decade later declaiming it? Marskell 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't try to obscure the situation here with "facts". We don't need any of those.  I'm sure that these guys have a perfectly irrational explanation for this.  --Chris Brennan 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Marskell, I don't recall any such quote. Perhaps you or Chris can provide? Aquirata 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so it seems there is no such quote or claim. Aquirata 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Every possible claim for astrology
What with this? It violates WP:NPOV. I'm reffering to the sentence "Besides the Mars-athletes claims, astrological researchers claim to have found statistical correlations in various other single-trait or single-factor samples, for example, red hair,[53] alcoholism,[54] work-related injuries,[55][56] marriage,[57] earthquakes,[58] birthdays and death[59], political elections,[60] climate change,[61][62] Moon phase and the dates of birth and decease,[63] Moon sign and stock or commodity prices,[64] and Saturn and eminent physicians,[65][66][52] and claim to have repeated some.[65][67]",

Marksell has pointed this out as well. You might want to condense this into a smaller sentence. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It also violates not an indiscriminate collection of info. And what's annoying is that there seems to be a desire to just keep on expanding it. The tag is there for a reason. The section has become a platform for sympathetic description. The long quotes from astrologers are a really nice touch added recently. Marskell 17:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I also think that the quotes from individual astrologers aren't worthy of inclusion as they are an extreme minority view. Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article just reads as POV pushing at this point, and even though I happen to be of that particular point of view, I still find it to be inappropriate and far too biased for a Wikipedia article.  --Chris Brennan 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The findings should be listed in detail but are crammed into one sentence because of violation of WP:NPOV. Undue weight is given against astrology. The fact is that researchers have been creating astrologically valid hypotheses and finding positive results faster than critics have been able to create astrologically invalid hypotheses (such as Dean and Kelly) and find negative results. There are now qualified scientist/astrologers to peer review articles for science journals, so that should no longer be an obstacle. As far as the research output goes, the astrology critics are in the minority. Piper Almanac 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's attitudes like this that are making it difficult, Piper. You have still not grasped that we are not proving anything and we are not providing a platform. The "findings" most definitely should be not listed in detail. NPOV: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."


 * Beyond the Mars effect (which rises above "vastly limited") these findings do not belong at all. Marskell 20:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to M, counterclaims should not be mentioned in the article as they represent an extreme minority view. I disagree with that. Aquirata 22:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I say that, counterclaims should not be listed in detail. The idea that astrology is scientifically valid is not a majority view. So, instead of using wikipedia as a platform to publish every possible finding, you should "condense" this sentence.


 * How about replacing it with this sentence which is Marksell's idea?
 * Besides the Mars-athletes claims, astrological researchers claim to have found correlations for physical and behavioural characteristics, societal trends, and large geophysical events. We seem to have a clear consensus for this sentence. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  04:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand again. Counterclaims are arguing against astrology. They represent a minority in astrology research, so they should be reduced to one sentence. Claims (arguing for astrology), on the other hand, represent the majority of research, and so should be listed in detail. Aquirata 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand Aquirata, or perhaps you're deliberately ignoring what NPOV says in regards to pseudoscience. It does not state "represent the pseudoscientific viewpoint as a majority on pseudoscience pages." It says present the "majority (scientific)" view as the majority view. Period. You know this. You've been told a dozen times on the NPOV page itself. Marskell 12:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And you also know that the wording of that section has been questioned many times. "Majority = scientific view" is an assumption, or, in WP parlance, OR. Aquirata 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The policy has been questioned by people pushing pseudoscience. Create a controversy and then ignore policy because of it? Nice try. Marskell 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You know of course how ridiculous this sounds. Just as the policy has been defended by people pushing science does. Aquirata 10:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please take it to the NPOV page Aquirata, as the situation has been explained clearly and repeatedly to you here. Jefffire 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course I have, but then again, people pushing science accuse me of beating a dead horse and pushing pseudoscience. Aquirata 11:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing we are pushing is NPOV. Take it to the NPOV page if you have an objection. Jefffire 11:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A good sense of humour is a virtue. Aquirata 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, and so is rationality. I've removed two of the references from the growing list of claims as they make no claim of astrology. Jefffire 13:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Another bloody thread on a stupid sentence
Why is this POV as your latest edit summary suggests? "Some critics object to the lack of an accepted astrological mechanism that would account for the supposed effects of celestial bodies on terrestrial affairs." Honestly, why? It's a fact and everybody (here) knows it's a fact. Leave aside whether there is a mechanism or whether you think it even needs one--it's been criticized on this basis. So can we save the stupid tangent please. Marskell 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you insists on removing the counterpoint, I will insist on removing the argument. All in the interests of NPOV. Aquirata 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But WHY IS IT POV? It's not. It's a simple statement of fact. It's true. Marskell 09:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, presenting just one side of the story is POV however true. Aquirata 10:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the story? Go read the section again and remind your self how much you've added for the "other side". Marskell 11:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The page is about astrology and not about debunking astrology. Aquirata 12:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The absence of properly conducted scientific evidence for astrology is rather an important part of the subject. See the pages related to creation science. Jefffire 12:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "The absence of properly conducted scientific evidence for astrology" is your view (POV) or assumption (OR). Failed studies must be presented and given their due weight. So do successful studies. Aquirata 12:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Plate tectonics by our own account had a forty year lag between suggestion and acceptance. Astrology is five thousand years and accounting. It's a poor example.
 * With the words "some critics" included (which you yourself wrote), there is no POV assertion.
 * Given that all of the rest of the paragraph is devoted to astrologer's viewpoints there is no issue with balance. Marskell 16:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

History section
This is an unnecessarily brief section. Any takers? Aquirata 12:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is 45+ K. Marskell 13:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is already way too long. We might have been able to expand the history section if you guys hadn't gone overboard with the science section, but it is a little late for that now.  --Chris Brennan 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Shit, it's actually 57k. A lot of this is refs, which don't count toward the total, and the external links at the end. Per not a collection of links that section should be reduced. But we definitely shouldn't be expanding when it's this overweight. Marskell 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Astrology and science section is longer than desirable because the underlying article was deleted. It is very hard to cram all relevant issues here without a backup article. Aquirata 12:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no need for the science section to be as long as it is. Personally I think that we have been far too tolerant of non-notability in allowing the stuffing in every barking mad claim under the sun. Jefffire 12:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we begin by deleting some of the excessive referencing in the other claims section. Jefffire 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The central fact as I see it is Aquirata turning every criticism into a "yes, but..." It's bloating the paragraphs. Marskell 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's probably the biggest problem for article size. Perhaps Aquirata would be happiest initiating a new Wiki dedicated to astrology? Jefffire 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest removing the entire External Links section. The links are VERY arbitrary and in need of serious editing. Unlike the very excellent article, which is professional and reasonably objective (despite all the arguments about it), the External Links look like pandering to some particular individuals. You can use the extra space for more history. Don't gut the Astrology and Science further (in my opinion). DavidCochrane 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps replace the External links section with a better Further reading list? The History section should have more detail and the Science section should be reduced, I agree. The latter can only be done in a significant way if there is a backup article. Aquirata 13:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The historical section is not only brief, but misleading. It needs to have some summary of what the various developments in astrology have been over the centuries, with mentions of specifics. Notable is the omission of the attacks on astrology by Pico and Ficino, and answers to it. There is also need to mention motives and applications other than divining the future.02:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How about material on the transition to heliocentric from geocentric models, that re-defined what counts as a planet, and how celestial influences might work? 15:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chaucer and Shakespeare
Added some references there. As we probably won't need all six, please delete the ones you think are not worthy of inclusion. Aquirata 13:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks for making the article needlessly even longer again Aquirata.  --Chris Brennan 16:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is short on scholarly sources and rich on popular opinion-pieces. How about re-writing appropriate parts of the article from scholarly sources alone, and adding John North's comprehensive study of astrology in Chaucer? Or maybe Shakespeare and Chaucer don't warrant a whole section of their own anyway. They're used here primarily as examples of how pervasive astrological thought was, not examples of astrology itself. It'd be more interesting to point out Chaucer's books on the astrolabe and equatorium to show how serious he was about it. There is no such mathematical link for Shakespeare. This would also be evidence for how astrology related to science in Chaucer's time (notwithstanding the debatable claim that science did not exist before the Scientific Revolution). - 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not sign up with a userid and help with this article? You have excellent suggestions.  Please look at the history of astrology article where much material has migrated from this general article.  While I would only use scholarly sources, it doesn't seem to be the general wiki policy to do so - many non-institutional websites are referenced, and most editors are not academics with access to the proper book and journal materials. Experts in any given topic are treated in an egalitarian manner, which is a reason why one of the founders of wikipedia left.  Astrologers generally do not think outsiders are experts in 'their' subject. This is partially true when you get down to the nitty-gritty of contemporary practice (techniques used, information about the astrological community) but biases about what is and is not important to the general public are frequently introduced. There are numerous spin-off pages about specific methods and meanings - astrologers are writing these pages. They don't seem to receive as much scrutiny as this article from an epistemological standpoint, but this is the one article that discusses claims of astrology as a science. Zeusnoos 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I suppose it's time. Marskell 14:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems the only way out of this mess. Jefffire 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Done. Marskell 13:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * During the past two months, the following users contributed to this article (apart from bots and anonymous users): Aquirata, Jefffire, Marskell, Resti, Nerval, Chris Brennan, Piper Almanac, Bobblewik, FeloniousMonk, Centrx, David Cochrane, Andrew Homer, BorgQueen, Zeusnoos, Ashibaka, Samir, Siddharth srinivasan, Doovinator, Samuella, Voice of All, Mike Rosoft, Berlin Stark, Neutrality, Ligulem, Lundse, Lumos3, Phasis, GraemeL, Shridharvk, Gerbrant, Man vyi, Bishonen (in reverse chronological order). Could you please tell me how you have selected Involved parties as per the Requests_for_mediation/Astrology:
 * Aquirata (talk • contribs)
 * Chris Brennan (talk • contribs)
 * Jefffire (talk • contribs)
 * Marskell (talk • contribs)
 * Piper Almanac (talk • contribs)
 * VorpalBlade
 * Thanks. Aquirata 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I selected the people who have actively been a part of the content disputes and are still editing the page now. Marskell 14:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I could have predicited your reply, and I didn't even need astrology. :)
 * The fact of the matter is that there have been three main contributors: Marskell, Piper Almanac, and myself. Jefffire has been active in removing stuff, but he hasn't contributed a single sentence. The others have not been active at all.
 * In my view the current list of Involved parties is tilted towards achieving your objective. I suggest that you revise this list before going further. Aquirata 10:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that a large portion of the reverts involve you and Jefffire it makes no sense to leave him out. He's obviously involved. Marskell 14:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your proposed list of Involved parties?


 * This is my proposed list of involved parties. If you have another one, present it. It is absolutely senseless, after all the reverting and arguing you've done with each other, to not involve Jefffire. Mediation isn't just for content—it's for all that is disputed and the manner of disputation. Marskell 10:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess we now have come to the question of your intentions because ultimately that will decide the list of parties. Do you want mediation regarding article content (balance, majority view, sources)? Or do you want mediation regarding my conduct on WP? I don't think it's healthy to mix the two. So perhaps you wish to clarify this issue first, then we can come back to who the involved parties should be. Aquirata 10:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The questions on the page explain what I think mediation is needed for. Content—particularly what astrological sources can be used for. Marskell 10:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. Quoting the RfC puts a personal touch to your mediation request. As I've stated before, these issues should be separated. Then we could determine parties. Aquirata 10:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As per Aquirata's suggestion, I would personally be quite happy to not be in the RfM and thus be exempted from any policies or restriction they suggest. Seems like a strange suggestions to me, but if it helps build consensus then sure. Jefffire 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't suggested this, it's your choice. Aquirata 00:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nature study
The Nature study was removed as "non notable" by Aquirata. Nature is one of, if not the, best respected journals on the planet. The article will have been put through exceptionaly rigorous peers reviews, and read by tens, if not hundreds of thousands. Why is it "non-notable"? Jefffire 14:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What's really frustrating now is that things that appeared to be settled are being removed. Aqu approved of the sentence on Dean as a compromise a week ago but has thrice removed it today. Of course nature is notable — it's the only source we have in a really well known journal. Marskell 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the reason you left out the journals of the National Council of Geocosmic Research, the International Society of Astrological Research, the American Federation of Astrologers, The Astrological Lodge, the Astrological Association, and the International Society of Business Astrologers was because they had too many big words? What the hell are you, Lundse, Petros421 & Jefffire doing here anyway other than to harrass? Go where you have some sense of accumen. Andrew Homer 06:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't make personal attacks. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  09:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Shawn Carlson study is non-notable. In his latest round-up of scientifc research into astrology, Dean doesn't even mention it. The reason is that it was an extremely flawed study. Just because it was published in Nature (which is non-notable with respect to astrological research), it doesn't suddenly make the study credible and notable.
 * However, upon your insistence, I have left the reference to this (devoting two sentences to this piece of junk!), but criticism of it must be left also. Aquirata 10:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a bunch of unsubstantiated statements which violates WP:NOR. The criticism of a single astrology enthusiast, on a peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal is irrelevant, and including it violates WP:NPOV.   Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew, you're comments here and elsewhere are enough for a civility block. I generally don't feed trolls, so I'll leave it at that.


 * Re, last comments, it's a "piece of junk" because you don't like it's outcome, which doesn't bear on whether it should be included. The sound bite you're insisting on does indeed violate undue weight; find a source equivalent to the source itself (say, a letter published in the journal in response to it) and it would make sense. If nothing else it's a strawman (Smith said X; Smith is an idiot). Marskell 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's a piece of junk due to the design of the study. Like I said, place of publication in this case doesn't strengthen the credibility of the study, quite the opposite. Nature's editorial board had no clue about astrology and how a proper study should have been designed. It is a top scientific journal, but that doesn't qualify it for astrological inquiries. On the other hand, the critique of it comes from somebody who is grounded in both psychology and astrology. It should also be obvious to you now that Nature will not publish any more astrological material, especially not something that will make the editorial board look stupid with respect to an article they have published before.
 * So, the original study is non-notable except from a historical perspective to show how bad research can be published in top scientific journals. Criticism of it must naturally be included. Aquirata 12:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would care to verify this assertain from a reliable source. So far all you have is a astrology fanatic writing in friendly journals. He is completely unreliable as a source. Now if Nature published something showing the study was unreliable, then you would have somewhere to stand. Jefffire 12:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Place of publication in this case doesn't strengthen the credibility of the study." For the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia it does. Verifiability, not truth. Marskell 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Predictions?
What does astrology predict for people born on space stations in interstellar space, on a Mars colony etc.????? Count Iblis 16:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me the textbook pertaining to such an orientation, cabana boy. Andrew Homer 06:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

State of business
I tend to agree with David Cochrane in that the page currently is in a good shape despite all the arguments over it. Does anybody have major issues at this point? Aquirata 10:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of a large amount of text about Ertel's work, which is scientificaly worthless but uncriticaly presented. The existance of a large section on other claims which are utterly non-notable. The insertion of personal opinions of individuals stated as if they were facts. The absence of an explaination that astrology is consider a protoscience only for it past contribution to fields. To name a few. Jefffire 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, let's see:
 * Ertel's work... is scientificaly worthless: Please provide references to back up this claim.
 * Ertel's work... is... uncriticaly presented: Does this follow from your line of reasoning, or is this something that we are doing?
 * Other claims... are utterly non-notable: Please provide references from within the astrological community why these claims are non-notable.
 * Personal opinions of individuals stated as if they were facts: Please be more specific.
 * astrology is consider a protoscience only for it past contribution to fields: This was in there yesterday ("in that regard" qualifier).
 * Comments? Aquirata 12:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ertel's work is not being reference by current scientist studies, this is evidence of it's worthlessness. The other claims likewise have recieved no mention. The criticism of the nature study is presented as if it were fact, when it is the opinion of an astrology adherant. Jefffire 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is a travesty
As an astronomy educator, I take great issue with many of the pseudoscience claims in this article. The removal of the historical connection to alchemy was ridiculous and the claims that it represents a protoscience because it can explain human traits is laughable. You will find no professional astronomer (that is people who actually study the heavens) who agrees with this subject as a legitimate research topic. I have no objections to characterizing this popular folk-superstition as such, but since it is not a belief based on the rigors of the academy nor the scientific methods, claims to the contrary need to be contextualized and the considerable amount of work that debunks astrology needs to be covered in this article in a better fashion than is currently done. --ScienceApologist 13:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fully agree. We need to present the scientific stance, that astrology is pseudoscience, as the majority viewpoint. Some of us have been trying, but have found this very difficult due to the edits by two contributors in particular (see Archive-7, and Archive-8). Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  13:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we're turning over a new leaf. I encourage those editors to join us in presenting the topic fairly and from a neutral point of view. --ScienceApologist 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You've expressed in a few short words the catastrophic failing of Wackipedia. Can there be a neutral point of view with respect to facts versus myths and nonsense. Are chiromancy, necromancy, tarot card reading, the hollow earth hypothesis, geocentrism, etc., etc., all to be treated from a so-called neutral point of view (which constitutes the very dogmatic point of view called epistemological relativism, BTW) or are the facts going to be faced up to here. Some things are true and some are false, some theories are scientific and the overwhelmingly vast majority are not. Here are an aleph-null number of theories for your consideration which someone (or some group) somewhere might consider for experimentation and potential falsification: 1) "theory of the invisible elf"-- there is an elf which immediately intervenes and endows human beings with free will whenever they (appear to themselves ) to make a choice. 2) There are two such elves. 3) there are three such elves......there are an infinite number of such elves!! How do you KNOW it's not true. Has it been tested and disconfirmed or what?? Of course not. Why?? Because it is "apriori" ridiculously implausible. Science (or better humanity) does not have infinite resources to spend investigating all of the outlandish theories that the imagination of man CAN INVENT. It certainly cannot be impartial about them. Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory because it has controllable practical consequence which HAVE been effectively controlled and demonstrated to explain and predict measurable phenomena in a laboratory setting. To compare astrology with QM is a frightening and destroys the very meaning of science. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lacatosias, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that the article should consist solely of the statement - "Astrology is pseudoscientific superstitious nonsense, you don't need to see its identification, move along." If unscientific or wacky theories have existed in history and have had an impact, an encyclopedia should describe them.  (Actually, there is historical precedent for the invisible elf theory - replace the word elf with 'guardian daimon' and you have Proclus' ontology of sublunar beings, although there are not infinite daimons but fewer daimons than human beings, and some daimons, acc. to Proclus, influence other human beings by way of a mediating human.)  Editors are attempting to describe astrology, which has had considerable impact in history and contemporary culture, and what practitioners do, and what they actually believe. If some practioners believe that astrology is a science and have attempted to investigate it by scientific methods, or if they have offered pseudoscientific explanations, let it be described. Where input from believers is most unhelpful is in the POV edits that slant it toward some sort of scientific status. If you find the description of how some astrologers are clinging to quantum physics to be slanted toward POV, then edit away. Zeusnoos 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you want to see a real travesty, look at Electional astrology where you'll find statements about inspired Sages from 3000 BC who shared their great wisdom of astrology to seers throughout the ages. Seriously, begin tackling this mess and battling believer POV doesn't require experts in science but those with acumen in the history of astrology.  Zeusnoos 17:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you think about this edition? I think it's a major improvement with regards to NPOV. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  16:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fully agree. This is the most strongly worded edit I have ever seen from ScienceApologist and it reflects the dreadful state that the article has degenerated into under the POV pushing of Aquirata (who is still refusing to either agree or disagree to a mediation to try and resolve this mess). Jefffire 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

question about Tycho edit
ScienceApologist recently made an edit to this sentence with the comment, "Characterizing Tycho as a "mathematicus" is trying to gain a connective legitimacy for astrology that is unwarranted." The sentence was:

"The famous mathematicus Tycho Brahe also used a similar phrase to justify his studies in astrology..."

The term mathematicus for astrologer is long standing - goes back to the late Hellenistic/Late Antiquity Greek - mathematikos. I think SA misunderstood and thought it meant mathematician. It's well-documented that Brahe was an astrologer.

On other matters, I wish this article were locked until arbitration is complete. I wanted to make some suggested revisions for the science section, but it's a moving target. Zeusnoos 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be unfair to other editors if this article was locked, wouldn't it? If you're willing to discuss your suggested revisions here, we could work to include it in the article. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  18:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe this article simply moves too fast for me rather than other editors. Everytime I sit down to look at it as a whole, it has changed.  My first suggestion is not beginning with the current first paragraph in the science section, but beginning with a summary statement about the issues discussed below.  Some of the first paragraph and beginning of the second seem to belong in the history section.  Secondly, this sentence:


 * "From the classical period through the scientific revolution, astrological training played a critical role in advancing astronomical, mathematical, medical and psychological knowledge." The word 'training' seems awkward. Isn't this sentence meant to express that astronomical observations such as eclipses and comets were astrologically 'motivated'. Using 'training' leads to questions of what sort of training.   Third, the titles "Research" "Causality" don't seem descriptive enough for the material in these sections.  :::Fourth: The beginning paragraph under "Research" sounds like an apology.  be condensed:
 * "Astrologers have argued that there are significant obstacles to carrying out scientific research into astrology today, most of which are due to funding issues.[27][28][29] It has also been suggested that a large majority of astrologers do not have the necessary background in science or statistics to carry out scientific testing.[27] Similarly, astrologers have argued that few scientists have the training and experience in astrology that would qualify them for competent astrological inquiry."
 * Rather:
 * "Astrologers argue that obstacles to scientific research in astrology include funding, lack of training of astrologers in scientific and statistical methods, and lack of training of scientists in astrological methods." I question why "a large majority of astrologers" are needed for any such tests - all that is needed are scientists and a dew competent astrologers to supervise the set-up of the studies so it tests what astrologers claims.
 * I see some of the long quotes have been removed already. Zeusnoos 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That Tycho practiced astrology wasn't surprising considering that most people who studied the heavens in Tycho's day did this. That's part of the protoscience aspect of astrology. However, calling him an astrologer is putting undue emphasis on this part of his work. I say undue because he is remembered not for his contributions to astrology but for his contributions to making an accurate accounting for the motion of the planets which is independent of whatever belief you may or may not have about how the planets effect your day-to-day life. --ScienceApologist 18:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The term mathematicus doesn't equate to astrologer. This is clearly explained in the introduction. And just because today with our heavily materialistic and reductionist minds "we" (i.e. scientists) tend to remember Tycho de Brahe for his "scientific" contributions, that doesn't justify editing history. He was called mathematicus in his day. Therefore he was. Aquirata 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thus is your opinion. But the term is not in common public usage and Tycho is much more widely known for his "materialistic" and "reductionist" contributions, than his astrological ones. For our plain speaking readers, plain English is better. Jefffire 13:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think including or excluding 'mathematicus' places any shift of emphasis. I'm fine with excluding it, but Tycho is being discussed here in the context of astrology, so why worry whether his other contributions to astronomy are 'tainted' by his beliefs. In fact, I think his belief in astrology explains his resistance to a heliocentric model! (is that OR?) Zeusnoos 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're fine with excluding it then we're done here. --ScienceApologist 14:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong references

 * First, this is given as a claim that astrological researchers have found statistical correlations for behavioural attributes. That reference does not validate that claim. This  is the other reference given for that claim. In the reference, it's clearly stated that

"This is a work still in progress so no claim is being made (or can be made) as to whether or not there is any validity to astrology. The claim I do make is that this method (comparing objectively observable horoscope features, such as angles between planets and midpoints, with objectively observable phenomena in the lives of people, e.g. murder) is a valid way to put astrology to the test. Further results will be reported as obtained.".

As a result, I'm removing the ref and the claim of behavioural attributes. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  06:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then this which claims a link between birth and death, is unconclusive and calls for further research(see bolded). Importantly, the major claim is not an astrological effect (see italics).

"From this examination, an questionnable statistical association emerges. Deceases occuring around the birthday, more or less thirty days, might be more numerous than predicted by chance.

The research should be extended by studying the reasons why the decease occured. Maybe suicides are more frequent around birthdays. We can also think about these birthday parties that tragically end, for example, because of a car crash or a too violent emotion. As many factors which, however, come under the astrologers' cyclic conception of life. "

Next, the other claim, the one which was published in the scientific journal Med Hypotheses, concludes

"Early adherents of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of the anthroposophical movement, tend to be born and to die during the dark half of the lunar month. There is significant correlation (P = 0.03) between the distributions of the lunar elongation at birth and at decease. However, this correlation does not operate at the level of individuals, suggesting that the effects of birth date and death date are statistically independent. Copyright 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd."

So, this ref clearly disproves, the link between astrology and birth and death rates!

As a result, I'm removing these references and the claim. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  06:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, this reference clearly states

" Serotonin is the substance in the brain of a homing pigeon that sensitizes the bird to the earth's magnetic field, allowing the pigeon to 'home in.' The field itself has been shown to fluctuate with lunar and solar influences. Nelson's work demonstrates a relationship between all of the planets and solar activity. Serotonin exists in the human body. The substance was neglected until biotechnology companies recently took an interest."

So the primary hypothesis is a scientific one, not an astrological one. This is not at all astrology! So, I'm removing this ref, but I'll let the claim stand.


 * Also, this is not at all astrology (see this  site). Bob Foster is a geologist who claims that Climate Change is inevitable, and it's an effect of the sun. His claim is that the observable, physical effects of the sun drives the climate change. Where astrology enters the picuture, I have no idea. So, I'm removing this ref. Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  07:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very bad, POV edits. You have no idea what astrology is. Aquirata 12:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent work Vorpal blade! That 15% chance of decapitation rolled in ;). Let's keep working to remove the frivilous references. Jefffire 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good work. Thank you for getting to the bottom of Aquirata's bogus claims.  --Chris Brennan 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some really great digging here, Vorpal. Kudos. Marskell 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

more awkward sentences
"Geoffrey Dean, a vocal critic of astrology, has noted in his landmark book surveying scientific research into natal astrology in the twentieth century: "In 1900 astrology was effectively medieval. Since then it has advanced and proliferated enormously."[25] Dean has suggested that continued interest in astrology is based on intuition and gullibility, though his analyses have been criticized by astrologers as agenda-driven.[26]"

Given the context, the quote makes it seem as though scientific research "has advanced and proliferated enormously" since 1900. Interest in and astrological techniques proliferated after astrology was popularized at the turn of the century. Secondly, "though his analyses have been criticized by astrologers as agenda-driven." Is every criticism of astrology going to be countered with "agenda-driven" or just this one? It seems unnecessary. Zeusnoos 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This was a "yes, but" that turned into a "yes, but, but", which is why the "agenda-driven" bit is there. I agree it shouldn't be seen to imply scientific research. The para does note "outside of mainstream science" in a previous sentence. Marskell 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Astrology is the subject of 'it' in 'it has advanced'. I will have to dig out my copy of Recent Advances and see the quoted sentence in context (no page number is cited).  What about astrology characterized it as medieval before 1900 in contrast to  after 1900?  It's a strange quote without the context.


 * How about:


 * "Although astrology has had no accepted scientific standing for three centuries, it has been the subject of much research among astrologers since the beginning of the twentieth century, mostly outside mainstream science. In his landmark study of research in natal astrology in the twentieth century, vocal critic Geoffrey Dean noted the increased popularity of astrology that has led to such studies: "In 1900 astrology was effectively medieval. Since then it has advanced and proliferated enormously."[25]"


 * Zeusnoos 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's better, IMO. I've included it. Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is Dean (from the inside cover of Recent Advances):
 * ''"In 1900 astrology was effectively medieval. Since then it has advanced and proliferated enormously. Today it has a vast burgeoning literature which threatens to swamp beginner and expert alike. This book cuts a clear path through the chaos.

''
 * ''This book systematically surveys the world’s major astrological literature published since 1900. It co-ordinates and summarises material from 310 astrology books (out of over 1000 consulted), 410 journal articles, and 300 relevant scientific works. It took nearly seven man-years to prepare and involved 50 astrologers and scientists from 10 countries.

''
 * The subject is a very big one and the result is a very big book -— about 250,000 words. Yet the presentation is exceptionally clear and concise. Each chapter is preceded by a brief abstract. All technical topics have a non-technical summary. It is suitable for anyone who has done one year of astrology.


 * Many topics hitherto treated very inadequately are treated in depth, see list on back cover. Rare material is summarised in full so that reference to the original is not necessary. A great deal of the information has not been published before.
 * 608 pages
 * 104 figures
 * 302 tables
 * ''1020 references
 * Glossary
 * Index
 * Résumé en Francais
 * Zusammenfassung"
 * Now you can make up your own mind about (1) what Dean meant, (2) whether it's relevant in the context, (3) my judgment for including the quote, (4) my intentions (as all have been questioned). You may also be awed by the sheer amount of material. And this is only covering 77 years, and just natal astrology. Aquirata 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's clear, then, that Dean is referring to burgeoning interest in astrology, so the quote is unnecessary. Zeusnoos 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That just doesn't make sense. "Vast burgeoning literature" doesn't simply refer to interest but research activity. Aquirata 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Effect size studies in astrology
Where are the studies? The references for this merely describe what effect size means and have some wildly inaccurate interpretations of astrology. The authors have no clue what they are talking about. Piper Almanac 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * From the ref
 * "The Big Arrow shows the mean of 54 studies, see Case For and Against Astrology under Adroit Utilities, where a total of 742 astrologers read a total of 1407 charts for personality, aptitude, or life events, with a mean accuracy of 51.7% vs 50% expected by chance." Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Next, the Dean ref on time twins says
 * "The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success but the results were uniformly negative. The effect size due to astrology, expressed as a correlation on a scale of 0 to 1, was 0.00 ± 0.03."
 * and the next statement
 * "The above result is consistent with other empirical studies, which when free of artifacts have consistently failed to find effects commensurate with astrological claims" Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to realize just how sophomoric and misguided Dean and Kelly's article is until you see it juxtaposed with Rudolf Smit's article, which develops a similar line of reasoning. Smit's article is truly idiotic without a modicum of astrological knowledge. It is an embarrassment and does not belong in this article. Piper Almanac 15:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's only your POV, which I'm sure many others will disagree with. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  05:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Constellations
What is with this whole revert war over constellations? Who is trying to argue for what here? --Chris Brennan 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure but the new editor may be removing the word 'constellation' since not all traditions are based on constellations. On a related point, I don't think the sentence in question is accurate:
 * "All astrological traditions are based on the relative positions and movements of various real celestial bodies and construction of celestial patterns as seen at the time and place of the event being studied."
 * Maybe it's a grammar issue and 'or' should replace 'and', but not all traditions are based on real bodies - Uranian uses non-existent hypothetical planets. I met a Chinese astrologer several years ago who did not use any planets or stars at all in her calculations - only the date and time of birth. Zeusnoos 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. For example, even western tropical astrology intentionally hasn't used the contellations as the main reference point since the second or third century.  I just wanted to see if there was a specific argument that ScienceApologist had for adding in the reference to constellations here.
 * The sentence previously said:
 * "Most astrological traditions are based on the relative positions and movements of various real and construed celestial bodies as seen at the time and place of the event being studied."
 * I thought that it was vague enough to work, but I don't know. How could it be adjusted to include traditions of astrology such as the one practiced by the Chinese astrologer that you mentioned?  --Chris Brennan 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I like "real or construed".  The Chinese practice, like 'lots' in Hellenistic seems to be largely 'derived' in the sense that they might start with bodies or some celestial frame of reference, but become a set of calculations that are not directly based on celestial observations. I read a book on Chinese astrology that constructed a chart with something called constellations, but they were not based on star patterns but were divisions similar to Western and Hindu houses. Many techniques in Western astrology alone are not based on visible bodies but on measurements such as the Ascendant and Midheaven.  It could also be the case that soem things called astrology are not proper to the name. Astrological associations in other systems of divination such as palmistry or tarot do not require time and place of birth, but borrow astrological symbolism. Zeusnoos 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "All" is too sweeping a statement to be accurate because of exceptions. Though vague, I agree that "most" is acceptable and would correspond to "mainstream" Western tropical astrology, which would be the most inclusive for the audience. Chinese seems to be based on a 12-year cycle with an arbitrary starting point, and a corresponding two hours per rising sign. Compared to Western astrological system, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with astronomy. Piper Almanac 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There may be a number of offshoots or types of Chinese astrology - the 12 year cycle may have been originally sidereal, but the contemporary practices and Chinese pop astrology seem to be divorced from the sky. Derek Walters' work is the only really meaty source I have encountered on the history of Chinese astrology. It mostly developed in the period corresponding to the Medieval West.  Before that, there are some records of omenic astrology - comet observations, eclipses, etc, similar to Babylonian and some Hellenistic practices.  Zeusnoos 12:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Carl Sagan
Ok, I think that the sagan comment on the humanist article is being twisted out of context. His statement, from was

"I find myself unable to endorse the "Objections to Astrology" statement, not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatsoever, but because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the origins of astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well for chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To discuss the psychological motivation of those who believe in astrology seems to me quite peripheral to the issue of its validity. That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong. Statements...that appear to have an authoritarian tone...confirm the impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded"

It currently says "he found the statement's tone authoritarian and the points made peripheral and unconvincing." Notice that he did say That we can think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. The statement, as it stand now, is very misleading.

Any objection in the article from sagan should say,
 * astrology has no validity whatsoever
 * tone of the statement is authoritarian
 * To discuss the psychological motivation is peripheral to issue of validity
 * that there is no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing

Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  05:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The offical reading of the giblets
"A Wikipedian has expressed the opinion that this article is unbalanced."

Indeed!!! I'd rather suggest that some of the folks who have written subtantial parts of this article and obviously believe in this hocus-pocus are the ones who are truly unbalanced. Good Christ!!! I know Wikipedia is a terrible magnet for cranks and frauds of all sorts, but this is way too much. Jimbo, this shit is a laughinstock and I'll send a copy of this to the editors of Encylopedia Brittanica if something is not done about it ASAP.

As for myself, I am going to find out about the future this afternoon during lucnch with the offical reading of the internal organs of various fowl: the daily reading of the holy giblets!! And why not? It almost certainly has as much scientific and epistemological standing as astrology. Does anybody remeber the mame of that ancient practice anyway?? fegatomancy, scaromancy or crapomacy (..    10:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)There were some strange but consistent marks on the creature's liver and then Fred beat his wife martha across the head with that hammer just as I expected!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias
 * Hi. Language like this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and strongly suggests that you haven't come to terms with WP:NPOV. If you're going to play, play nice. William Pietri 14:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ertel mention.
I think it would be best to condense the section on Ertel down to a reference after the word "replicate". Basicaly he does not seem to have added anything scientific to the study, and the only references provided are highly dubious sources. By condensing we avoid giving undue weight. Jefffire 12:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, you clearly demonstrate a total lack of understanding with respect to this line of research. I suggest you read the Kollerstrom reference. Aquirata 10:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Charming you are. I repeat my suggestion of reducing this down on the grounds of it's unreliability and lack of scientific respect. Jefffire 13:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite Aquirata's highly civil and reasoned contribution to the discussion, I've reworded the section to avoid all undue weight. Only the intial work by Gauquelin is of any notability so only that is mentioned in any detail. I've based the last sentence on the complete absence of scientific papers on the subject in mainstream publications, so I trust that will be acceptable. Jefffire 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As per Piper's edit summary point, I have worded my reword to make note that Ertel's work is distinct. Jefffire 13:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The work seems to have been undone without discussion as part of Aquirata's usual rapid fire edit crunching. Only the original work by Gauquelin is notable, so I've condensed all the skeptics and astrologers works into a single sentence to avoid any and all undue weight. It is far better this way than making note of all the minor claims of Ertel and Zelin. Jefffire 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Aquiratas, where's your discussion of changes?
30 edits in less than an hour. Why are you not presenting your changes here first? Zeusnoos 14:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's bloody annoying, particularly the subtle tweaking of language perceived as critical ("has had" to "had," which you just noticed, for instance). Marskell 14:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also notice the not so subtle deletions of the nature article, and the inclusion of the med hypothesis although it clearly contradicts the claim. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't there some sort of policy against this sort of editing? I seem to recall some sort of guideline about making the least number of edits possible so that it doesn't mess up the edit history, but I can't seem to find that rule at the moment.  It does seem like a pretty underhanded way to push through changes. --Chris Brennan 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bloody annoying, isn't it? And I was simply following in the footsteps of some of the more experienced editors here. When they were doing it, you were silent. When they were quoting WP:BB and WP:IAR, that was just dandy. Now you're up in arms. Where were you when I was calling for cooperation? I'd say perhaps you should examine your double-standards. Perhaps there should be some ground rules laid down beyond policies and guidelines, as I had proposed. Or would that go beyond what you are prepared to observe? Aquirata 10:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yawn. Marskell 11:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Boy, you need more sleep! This could even help in developing a more positive attitude towards your fellow editors. Aquirata 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't recall making 30 edits in under an hour and trying to hide major deletion under minor edits. And if I had, two wrongs don't make a right. Looks like WP:Point to me. Jefffire 12:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not make unfounded accusations. Nothing was "hidden" under minor edits. Everything was fully explained in the edit summaries. And do you have something against a concentrated effort to edit the article? Should I hang out all day at the keyboard like some of you do? Would that make me a better WP editor? Is there a policy or guideline for this? So please spare me from your ad hominems. Aquirata 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Charmed. Jefffire 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes to subtitles
Changed "Research" and "Claims and counter-claims" to more descriptive subtitles. Everything under research was about astrologers' claims of obstacles to research. I think it should also be moved below the Research claims and counter-claims. Zeusnoos 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's much more apt now. Thanks! Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Victor Mansfield
Victor Mansfield's ideas have become twisted. He did not "acknowledge" that there is little support for physical mechanism. He says they are too undeveloped to fight over. He asserts that this is a straw man argument that does not illuminate other possibilities, such as those that can be drawn from quantum physics.


 * On the subject of VM, how are his claims received in the theoretical physics community? I went to a lecture of his a few years ago, sponsored by a Jungian psychology institute. I got the impression that his career is lecturing and writing to astrologers and new age communities. Does he maintain a career in physics? Zeusnoos 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also VM says
 * " However, given the state of the proposals with which I am familiar, within currently accepted science, there is little support for a physical mechanism for astrological influence"
 * So he does say that there is little support for physical mechanism. I think that a major problem in this article is putting words into other peoples mouth. Why can't we let the facts speak for itself? Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He does indeed say that, but this is not his conclusion. There are some proposals (e.g. Percy Seymour's) that have little support, and they are not worth fighting over, but are straw man arguments. He states his own proposal. This is very clear. Piper Almanac 18:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't see your point. Obviously, VM and others see value in his lecturing and writing. Don't we all try to make a contribution to society according to our interests and ideas? In this case he is simply pointing out the irrationality of asking something from astrology that doesn't exist in a very major part of physics. The straw man "causality" issues are not scientific arguments, but are rhetorical. To me they smack of pseudoscience. Piper Almanac 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

put back reference to alchemy and protoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrology&diff=64654521&oldid=64654363

This edit removed alchemy on the basis of "POV tangent". I don't think this is tangential since astrology is often grouped by historians with alchemy as protosciences or pseudosciences that result in motivation of the development of a science (in this case, astronomy and chemistry).

I know there has been some discussion of protoscience here, and I didn't write this phrase originally, but it seems that it should not be removed since it helps define protoscience. Zeusnoos 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the comparison is POV, but it might be tangential because it leaves a lot just hanging out there. If Newton wasn't an alchemist, would he have been as motivated? Astrology has contributed to astronomy, math, and psychology. It still contributes to psychology, as most Jungians study it to some degree and are motivated by it. Can it be reworded in a non-leading way? Piper Almanac 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as psychology is not psychoanalysis, you may need to revise your last statement. Psychoanalysis is not accepted as an academic or scientific discipline. --ScienceApologist 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not accepted? Please elaborate. Doovinator 04:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Psychoanalysis is certain not a scientific discipline, but it certainly is an academic discipline as are many other non-scientific studies such as literature, art theory, history, philosophical theories, etc. Zeusnoos 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Psychoanalysis is an extreme minority theoretical standpoint in the world of clinical psychology. The only place it seems to have any cred whatsoever these days is in literary theory, where it simply refuses to die. siafu 13:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Paraphrase of a line I heard once upon a time: "The only people still interested in Freud are English professors." Marskell 12:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Protosciences can also contribute to other protosciences. Research is a creative endeavour with a lot of cross overs and its only the most mature sciences that seem so clear cut. They didn't start that way. Piper Almanac 13:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Perspective
There should be a (NPOV, of course) passage on what the Bible says about astrology. --Gray Porpoise 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so: for then there should be such a passage for all notable religions, and on all controversial subjects. It makes more sense to discuss such subjects (insofar as worth mention) under the headers of different religions. Harald88 21:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * However, a case could be made for including an Astrology and religion section. Aquirata 00:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Six or seven months ago, I added the following: "Astrology has also been rejected on a religious basis. While many prominent Christians have historically practiced the system it is generally rejected in the theology of that faith as well as in Islamic teaching." It has since been removed. Marskell 13:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really reflect the actual historical state of affairs. Zeusnoos or Chris Brennan could tell you a lot more on this issue. However, it is safe to say that the priesthood forbade the practice of astrology by the masses because they would have felt threatened otherwise (they were using it themselves). This is in some ways analogous to the Biblical Tree of Knowledge. So there is a lot more to astrology and religion than simple rejection. Aquirata 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That statement, as I'm reading it, that Marskell is referring to is not really making a claim about the beliefs of the masses of these religions, but rather a doctrinal matter, which it is. Obviously many Christians are believes in astrology, but most Christian churches officially reject it for various reasons (e.g., as idolatry, polytheism, whatever).  I'm not exactly convinced that the reason that astrology was forbidden in these cases has or had anything to do with a sense of being "threated" on the part of the priesthood so much as a perceived theological incompatibility. siafu 23:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We cannot comment on the current state of affairs without referring to historical context. So my point was that including a simple disclaimer regarding current views by church authorities is grossly inadequate. Proper context must be given, for which we need experts on the history of astrology. Aquirata 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That, and experts on the history of theology or religion. siafu 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. Aquirata 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue of astrology's reception by religious traditions is terribly complicated and would be a separate article in itself. To make matters more complicated, at least in late antiquity astrological symbolism was borrowed by religious groups such as gnostics, although what they were doing (with the possible exception of one founder of a gnostic cult) was not really astrology. To the original query, there was not much astrology in the Bible - Paul uses language of powers and thrones once in a letter to a town that would have been familiar with astrology.  Divination and magic are condemned (in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible as well).  It can be argued that the Magoi story was a later elaboration as Jesus' life began to take on mythical characteristic, and that if priests from Persia did visit, any type of astrology they practiced was omenic or not recorded in history, and not as M. Molnar argues, Hellenistic astrology of Ptolemy (his theory is full of holes in my view).  The Revelations symbolism is arguably gnostic - astrological or constellational symbolism is mixed up with other symbolism that you might find in similar apocryphal works.  Its inclusion into the canon at the councils was permitted by a slim margin, simply on the basis that it was thought to have been authentically written by John near the end of his life.
 * Ok, that aside, Marskell's statement is largely correct - most Christian denominations reject astrology outright as do Islamic, though everyone knows the Muslim Arabs were responsible for developing and transmitting astrology in the 9th-10th centuries. Hinduism embraces astrology and is perhaps the largest religious proponent, Buddhism largely rejects divination and astrology, though Tibetan Buddhism maintains an electional astrology.  Individual Christians who embrace astrology are in a unique position of having to reconcile their beliefs (of course it depends on what those beliefs are since they vary on fundamental points) with astrology.  Zeusnoos 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jung reference
I added a reference to the statement that Jung thought astrology was a descriptive language of the psyche, but not predictive. The specific passage is the following. After he says mythologized processes in nature are not allegories but "symbolic expressions of the inner, unconscious drama of the psyche which becomes accessible to man's consciousness by way of projection," he indicates his adherence to famous precession argument:

"In the case of astrology, for instance, this age-old "scientia intuitiva" came to be branded as rank heresy because man had not yet succeeded in making the psychological description of character independent of the stars. Even today, people who still believe in astrology fall almost without exception for the old superstitious assumption of the influence of the stars. And yet anyone who can calculate a horoscope should know that, since the days of Hipparchus of Alexandria, the spring-point has been fixed at 0* Aries, therefore quite arbitrary, the spring-point having graduatlly advanced, since the, into the first degrees of Pisces, owing to precession fo the equinoxes...

"'The stars of thine own fate lie in they breast,' says Seni to Wallenstein-a dictum that should satisfy all astrologers if we know even a little about the secrets of the heart. But for this, so far, men have had little understanding. Nor would I dare to assert that things are any better today." Zeusnoos 14:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have a little more perspective on this "not predictive" statement. Jung didn't associate the workings of the psyche with the stars as constellations (sidereal zodiac) and neither do Western astrologers, who use the tropical zodiac. When he says that astrology is not predictive, I take that to mean not predictive in a fatalistic or deterministic sense. The drama projected by the psyche is not a question of specifics, but of archetypal processes. Piper Almanac 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't write the sentence in question. But it's clear that what Jung criticizes is "people who still believe in astrology fall almost without exception for the old superstitious assumption of the influence of the stars." Influence of stars, to him, means physical, causal, influence of constellations/stars. He does not explore that fact that western astrologers practice with a tropical zodiac - it's irrelevant to his take on astrology.  Rather, he proposes that the symbolism of astrology is not dependent on such mechanism for meaning.  In a later work published before Synchronicity he describes his experience of coincidence when putting together the sun/moon marriage study:  "Although I was obliged to express doubt, earlier, about the mantic character of astrology, I am now forced as a result of my astrology experiment to recognize it again." (The Structure and Dynamics of the Unconscious). He describes this 'mantic' character is the coincidental arrangement of pairs of charts on his desk with Moons conjunct and other configurations that he considered meaningful.  While his use of the word mantic is anachronistic, what he means is that astrology offers symbolic meanings that show up without the predictive character of 'such and such will/is likely to happen in the future' because it is written in the symbols. Using astrological symbolism to find meaning through coincidence is not normal astrological practice.Zeusnoos 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sad state of affairs
"By the seventeenth century, scientists were so reluctant to consider that heavenly bodies had any effect on earthly conditions that Newton had difficulty affirming the theory of universal gravity, as well as (and especially) the theory that the moon caused tides on earth."

 Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  08:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Request
Aquirata, please stop vandalising the astrology page, like your edits ,,. These have been discussed before, and you are repeatedly editing against consensus.

Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  15:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Please familiarize yourself with the term "vandalism" before making baseless accusations. You may also point me to the relevant section in Talk where consensus in your opinion is present regarding my edits. Aquirata 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, Wikipedia doesn't say what you did as vandalism. But you are repeatedly POV pushing and editing against consensus. This is highly disruptive. If you scroll up a bit, you might see the relevant sections in Talk. I'm suprised that you can't find it, but maybe you are ignoring it on purpose, becuase this is not the first time you're doing this/ Vorpal Blade  snicker-snack  07:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ertel
Jefffire, please become familiar with Ertel's work by reading the references before attempting to edit. You have tried to present Ertel's work as a "replication," but this is untrue. Ertel analyzed all the Mars-athlete data already researched by Gauquelin and the Gauquelin critics. His analysis shows a linear relationship between Mars placement and success in sports. It shows up on all the collected data. It was predicted by Gauquelin. It has been critically discussed among concerned scientists, but after eight years the finding still stands without any explanation other than astrology. Yet you have removed Ertel completely from the article, arguing that it is given undue weight. Undue weight in relation to what? A functional relationship like this is by far the heaviest thing yet that relates astrology to science. None of the Mars-athlete critics are left floating. Piper Almanac 16:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully disagree. That's a lot of OR and wild claims in your para Piper. Read this and the reply (and all the personal attacks) here.


 * Also, refer to, for explanations other than astrology. You are cherry picking your data. Vorpal Blade snicker-snack  04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is undue weight and POV pushing. Ertel's work and claims are simply not notable, and neither is the work done by serious scientists, such as Zelin. Only Gauquelin's work is notable. Additionaly, you are taking Ertel's claims at face value. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and the publications which Ertel has elected to publish in are not that. Leave the paragraph mentioning only Gauquelin in detail, and leave the less notable rebutals and further claims as a word to avoid this undue weight. Jefffire 12:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the references cited (again) and they do not discuss the Ertel's analysis and his finding of the eminence effect but are old discussions regarding Gauquelin's Mars effect that precede Ertel's work. Ertel's analysis was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal and in his book (coauthored with Kenneth Irving) The Tenacious Mars Effect. Ertel's analysis is well known among the concerned scientific community. Gauquelin himself refered to the eminence effect in his article "Is there Really a Mars Effect?" Goeffrey Dean, who did not take Ertel's analysis at face value, provided his critism, which I've included. Ertel's analysis has received published attention from the concerned parties, which, no matter how it was originally published, makes it known and notable. Are you trying to say that to include Ertel's analysis is cherry picking but to ignore it and go back and choose among the old criticism that it resolved is not? Piper Almanac 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My arguement is one of reliable sourcing and undue weight. Ertel's work is not published in reliable sources, and is not notable. A simply mention as in my prefered version avoids this problem. Jefffire 14:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem you have is that Ertel published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and the astrology critics did not. Now you are trying to claim that none of the sources are reliable or "notable" and try to use this argument to justify your removal of any specific mention of Ertel's research. Doesn't this give undue weight to the sources of the astrology critics, most of which predate Ertel? Piper Almanac 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Which reliable journal did Ertel publish in? So far all I've been shown is Correllation and Scientific Exploration, both of which are a long way away from being reliable sources. Did Ertel publish in Nature without me noticing? The journal you cite are not reliable. Until you cite from reliable sources do not insert controversial text. Jefffire 10:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you are trying to claim that none of the sources are reliable or "notable" and try to use this argument to justify your removal of any specific mention of Ertel's research.


 * Yup. As per WP:NPOV#undue_weight. Jefffire 11:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this give undue weight to the sources of the astrology critics, most of which predate Ertel?


 * Wikipedia is built upon authority. If Ertel lacks the temerity to publish in a proper journal that is his problem, not mine. Until he overcomes his aversion to mainstream scrutiny, nothing he publishes can be treated with any authority here. Also, criticisms of the Mars effect have been reduced to the words "claim to refute", so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of undue weight from. Jefffire 11:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)