Talk:Astrology

1. Feb 2005 - Aug 2005:
2. Sept 2005 - End of 2005:
3. Jan 2005 - mid-Feb 2005:
4. mid-Feb 2005 - End of April 2006:
5. May 2006:

From the village pump

It may interest you to know that someone posted these comments on Astrology on the Village Pump. I am posting here for info (with my reply). If you wish to comment on my reply, fine, but beware I won't respond to or even read your comments unless you leave a note on my talk page (I have no interest in Astrology) Captainj 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and strives to be as accurate as possible, shouldn't we have a scientific point of view, rather than a neutral point of view?

It becomes very difficult to edit articles on pseudoscience, such as astrology, when describing the scientific point of view is treated as a form of bias. For example, there is strong disagreement on mentioning the mainstream scientific view in the introduction to astrology, as it is might be considered as bias. I think implementing a scientific point of view, will go a long way in improving the quality of articles on wikipedia. At the least, we could amend the NPOV, so that more emphasis is provided to the mainstream scientific view, when disputes arise. 59.92.62.97 15:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But astrology isn't a scientific subject! (I wouldn't even call it pseudo-science). Any scientific view inevitably will criticize it, and be irrelevant. Don't pretend that Astrology even merits scientific arguments - it doesn't (personally I think its a load of rubbish, but that's neither here nor there). But it is notable, and it is respected by a large number of people. I think the current intro is balanced and makes it clear tha Astrology is a system of belief, nor does it make unilateral claims. The section "The objective validity of astrology" also deals with criticisms - I can't see a problem, it is a balanced article which seeks to explain a system of belief that is widely known and very popular (even though it is unscientific). I think a WikiScience wouldn't be a bad idea, but that's a separate issue (WikiScience if it existed wouldn't even have articles like astrology on it). Captainj 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is pesudo science, becuase it claims to apply the positions of celestial bodies in understanding events on Earth. So it's portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work and is unsupported by sufficient scientific research.

In my opinion, the point that it is notable, and is respected by a large number of people, shows the need for a scientific point of view. This is because, there is overwhelming evidenince, via controlled experimental studies, that astrology cannot make consistent accurate prediction. So any such statement, which says astrology fails to make accurate predictions, is essential in an introduction to the subject, as it can be verified by facts. So considering what many people say today, isn't it essential to include the fact that astrology doesn't work in controlled experiments in the introduction, to give a balanced view? siddharth 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anywhere that Astrology claims to be a Science, either explicitly or implicitly it should be countered with scientific method(i.e. does it succeed at tests it could fail at?). I didn't see that in the introduction. The only part I object to is this idead that there is any correlation between the movement in the stars and events on Earth, but then I've seen correlation misused enough in Wikipedia and outside to realise that 99% of people just use it without even understanding what it means. (eg What does a correlation 0.786 mean?) But if I remember right it used the words "supposed correlation" so I guess that's not as bad. Captainj 09:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Science and 'pseudoscience'

Captainj, Lundse, Marskell, Siddharth, anonymous skeptics, and the indefatigable but now MIA Jefffire: Do you have an appreciation for the history and complexity of astrology? Geoffrey Dean, the most respected skeptic authority on research into astrology, has this to say about astrology in his landmark book, Recent Advances in Natal Astrology:

"Astrology has been a respectable subject for millenia; hence today's popular misconceptions hardly justify terminological repeal... Astrology means different things to different people. It is variously regarded as a sacred historic tradition, a secret esoteric doctrine for initiates only, a science ruled by physical laws, a symbolic art/philosophy/religion, or superstitious entertainment. Clearly some areas are not accessible to objective enquiry [...] but none should involve the suspension of critical faculties."

Notice he doesn't use the term pseudoscience. In his extensive (17-page) index, the word pseudoscience is not included. I venture to say he doesn't use this word at all in the book (I haven't checked all 600 pages). Why? Because he has studied astrology and knows better. Using the term pseudoscience with respect to astrology shows that the person hasn't studied astrology hard enough and doesn't have a proper grasp on what astrology is.

Carl Sagan, a defining figure of modern astronomy, said this about the infamous Humanist article: "I find myself unable to endorse the 'Objections to Astrology' statement (September/October, 1975) - not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatever, but because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is authoritarian. [...] Statements contradicting borderline-, folk- or pseudo-science that appear to have an authoritarian tone can do more damage than good."

Also notice how careful Sagan is in not saying that astrology is pseudoscience. To my knowledge he hasn't studied astrology extensively, but still his instinct and judgment tells him to tread carefully in unknown territory.

If you actually consider the history of astrology and science, you will quickly see how inappropriate the term pseudoscience is when it comes to astrology. Astrology has traditions going back for thousands of years, and it had been considered as a science for much of that tradition. For most of written history, philosophy stood at the top of the scientific edifice, so astrology, which is also a form of philosophy, was naturally held in high regard.

Sorry, I had to call you on this. It was theology, not philosophy, which was thought to be the higher standard and where other areas got their validation - at least for the whole of the 'middle ages'. Philosophy took over (to some degree, this is debated) a lot later (modern era). And astrolgy is not a form of philosophy, no matter how you bend that term. Philosphy is thinking without dogma (as can best be done in a given time), astrology is dogma which has not been tested - there is nothing philosophic about it. Lundse 00:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The so called scientific revolution changed all that. A new definition of science emerged, and the new scientific community started to question the validity of every other science that didn't conform to that new definition. Eventually, the term pseudoscience has surfaced and was applied to some of the old sciences, most notably to astrology and alchemy, without a proper understanding of what these old sciences were (just a short diversion: alchemy is not about transforming physical matter into gold). By extension, philosophy could be called a pseudoscience since it does make (implied) predictions. But astrology, with its express predictive nature and religious overtones has become one of the main targets of modern-day science.

Today's science has descended from the old sciences it now calls pseudoscience, so in effect it is trying to distance itself from its roots as much as possible. I'm not here to write a psychological or philosophical discourse about this process, but it would certainly make for an interesting analysis. The bottom line is this: showing lack of respect for your traditions means lack of respect for the world in general and, most of all, lack of self-respect. It is like changing your family name and denying your father and mother. In the case of science, the name didn't change, only its meaning did. And the dethroning of father astrology by son science has occurred much like the dethroning of Uranus by Cronus in Greek mythology (quoted from a reliable, neutral source):

"In Greek mythology, Cronus [Saturn, modern day science] was the leader and the youngest of the first generation of Titans, divine descendants of Gaia, the earth, and Uranus, the sky [astrology]. He overthrew his father, Uranus, and ruled during the mythological Golden Age, until he was overthrown by his own son, Zeus [Jupiter, religion to come, spirituality], and imprisoned in the depths of the underworld, Tartarus [a section of Hades, abode of the dead, of which Hades/Pluto was god.] He was usually depicted with a sickle, which he used to harvest crops and which was also the weapon he used to castrate and depose Uranus."

"While the Greeks considered Cronus a force of chaos along with disorder, believing that the Olympian gods had brought an era of peace and order by seizing power from the crude and malicious Titans, [...] his nature under Roman influence became more innocuous, with his association with the Golden Age eventually causing him to become the god of 'human time', i.e., calendars, seasons, and harvests."

This is a very telling story, but, by definition, it cannot be understood in a strict Saturnine (scientific) manner. Any attempt of explanation to the scientific mind would be futile. I will let you, however, contemplate the possibility that perhaps there is more to astrology than what the skeptic and scientific community tell you.

And just a final note on the de-subjectification aspect of modern science. It is common practice in warfare to dehumanize the enemy because it is much easier to extinguish objects than to murder people. This is achieved by degrading the perceived enemy in any manner suitable in service of the final objective. The militia posing as the defender of 'truth' in opposition to the 'big bad enemy' in political, economic and religious wars is a well-known public relations exercise. In much the same way, modern science is waging a 'holy war' not just against 'pseudoscience' in the 'interest of the public', but also against the entire subjective/irrational world by objectifying living beings and denying the existence of non-matter (despite its physical and astronomical theories telling it that this is a wrong assumption). If you cannot see this analogy working in every facet of your life (including Wikipedia), then your eyes haven't opened yet to a truth that is larger than science. And if that's the case, it probably won't help you much if I point out that Mars (military, wars, aggression) exalts in Capricorn, the home of Saturn (modern science, death). Aquirata 13:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You quoted Sagan. Let me point out that, in what you quoted, Sagan says that astrology has no validity. Besides, the reason he is against such statements, is not becuase they aren't correct (ie, astrology is a pseudoscience), but becuase he fears the rest of the community might be put off by the rigid (but correct) stand.

Also in the "Is Astrology relevant to conciousness and Psi?" link, the experiment performed by Geoffrey Dean concludes that there is no hint of support for astrology, which is the point we are trying to make.

There is already a statement made above which describes why astrology is a pseudoscience. Please read that.

Also, you missed the point. Modern science, (or science as we call it today) originated from Galileo and Newton. What was practised before, such as Alchemy, wasn't a science.

The point I'm trying to make is that, the best way we can verify the accuracy of something, is by the scientific method. For example, if any religion claims the earth is 6000 years old, we can refute that claim by science (carbon dating). Because science describes the world around us in the form of the laws of nature, it is essential to our understanding of many subjects. I'm not saying that every article can be described from a scientific viewpoint. What I'm saying is that, when science can provide us with essential information, it must be given importance. For example, science tells us, through controlled experiments, that astrology cannot make accurate predictions. That fact is vital to the description of the astrology. Similarly, in Intelligent Design, the scientific viewpoint is the one which is most likely to be accurate, and hence is mentioned in the introduction to the article. Do you agree with this? 59.92.40.65 13:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue what Sagan believed in, but let me also point out that he said he didn't feel astrology had any validity whatever. Note the careful wording. Certainly the main point of his statement was that an authoritarian tone without any scientific justification is simply not what scientists are supposed to do. (Authority is associated with Saturn in astrology, so this is a tough pattern for a modern scientist (also mostly Saturn) to avoid.) The point of the quote was to show that Sagan doesn't use the expression astrology is pseudoscience even though it is expressly stated in the Humanist article and even though he doesn't feel astrology is (objectively) valid. Aquirata 14:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Dean, I'm fully aware of his position. I am quoting non-believers so that you consider what they said. I am not arguing about whether astrology has objective validity. I am simply trying to make you see how a good introduction can be written in accordance with the NPOV policy. It matters a jot whether the scientific point of view is correct or not. Since there is no world-wide consensus on the objective validity of astrology (the last note on the Mars effect was confirming it, btw), any argument regarding objective validity doesn't belong in the introduction. It has a section devoted to this subject. Dean pointed out that some areas [of astrology] are not accessible to objective enquiry. Astrologers maintain that there is much more to astrology than objective validity or scientific proof. In fact they say the objective part is insignificant compared to the rest. So if objective validity addresses only a small slice of astrology, and the statement is argumentative, why include it in the introduction? Do you see the argument that 'Newton was a very difficult and pitiful man' in the introduction of Isaac Newton? When it comes to a balanced view, all we have on alchemy and Newton in the introduction is this: "Despite this renown in mainstream science, Newton spent more time working on either alchemy or chemistry rather than physics." The rest of the four paragraphs are about his scientific achievements. This is a very heavily biased view of Newton the man. Do you wish to take this article in the same direction? Aquirata 14:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It would be irresponsible for an encyclopedia to carry an article on pseudoscience, without describing it as pseudoscience. 59.92.40.65 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not delude yourself that there is an objective reality which you will discover with the help of science. Any experience, by definition, is subjective. No matter how many instruments you devise, no matter how many theories you prove, the final arbiter of 'truth' is always the human being. As long as you limit your world to the material, you won't be able to escape from the human senses and the human mind, not even with the help of future computers. All you can hope to achieve is a representative description of the material world we perceive. Laws of nature are nothing more than our perception of the world around us. Aquirata 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What you said above, is blatantly, clearly wrong. 59.92.40.65 14:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless we one day become Transhumans! Do see Transhumanism, today's Featured Article. --205.188.117.7 04:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think what you said above is a part of an interesting philosophical discussion, and one that scientists have been engaged in for hundreds of years. It still does nothing for your side of the argument that this debate is (and should be) running, though, as astrology could be subjected to the same criticism (and the one about how it has never made an accurate prediction).

Your entire tirade is about what exactly? That prominent people do not use the word pseudoscience? That Sagan only "felt" that it was without validity (which I take as pissing on his grave, BTW)? Lundse 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, My point was simply to indicate in a few paragraphs (as much as this can be done) how intricate the subject is and how prominent skeptics approached it with caution. There are many statements by the editors the post was addressed to that show a basic lack of appreciation for this. Aquirata 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A shot in the pseudoscience wars

Aquirata wrote: "Astrology has traditions going back for thousands of years, and it had been considered as a science for much of that tradition. For most of written history, philosophy stood at the top of the scientific edifice, so astrology, which is also a form of philosophy, was naturally held in high regard."

I disagree with this statement on historical grounds. The history of astrology is far more nuanced and cannot be reduced to saying it has been considered a science for much of the tradition. Nor was it universally respected, even in the Hellenistic period. (I've discussed some of this in other places) Yes, it was immensely popular in, say, the Roman Empire, but it was also banned by certain Roman laws and was criticized on skeptical, philosophical, and religious grounds, even and perhaps especially while it enjoyed some popularity.

Other than the fact that I'm following these articles as an means to avoid work, I generally have not contributed much on these issues because this Wikipedia format leads to numerous historical generalizations sourced from popular (meaning, not necessarily academic) accounts. The problem is intensified with astrology because it is a contemporary practice, and not simply an historical phenomenon. The historical sources are available, but when you have so many people with half-baked opinions and something personal at stake, the pool is muddy.

These efforts to keep the astrology articles free of skepticism are ludicrous. Not that it does or should make a difference, but I can says this and answer Doovinator's challenge (if he would provide whether the SA is precessed, and for the living, travel or natal location), and I can be satisfied with allowing the word 'pseudoscience' as the known category scientists and philosophers of science use for it.

My vote is that this sentence stays: "Astrology is often defined as a form of divination by astrologers [citation needed] and as a pseudoscience by much of the scientific community." As for citations on astrology as divination, Roy Willis and Patrick Curry, Astrology, Science and Culture, Berg Press, 2005. This work is highly problematic, however there is one good chapter discussing how astrology is viewed by astrologers (useful resource for the proposed theories article). This is a very recent book and takes previous work on this subject such as that by Phillipson in account. Another citation: Geoffrey Cornelius, A Moment of Astrology, (not sure of the press, 1994, reprinted recently - 2004?). Even under Jungian theory (cf Maggie Hyde's work) astrology is still considered divination. The question, then becomes, how does one theorize about divination? Out of scope for this article. Zeusnoos 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The second edition of Cornelius' book was printed in 2003. Aquirata 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If one bothers to study the topic they're discussing, one would know that 5,000 years ago that Astrology started as a divination system. But especially starting with Carl Jung's use of natal charts to analyze his customers around 1900, that the modern strength of Astrology is, now, character analysis. There are many other uses of Astrology, now days: relationship analysis, vocational counseling, political projection, relocation assessment, earthquake studies, commodity projection, stock market analysis, etc. Andrew Homer 23:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Many alleged uses you mean. After all, there is no evidence whatsoever that astrology works. So, applying it to such fields is really a sad reflection of the lack of rational thinking in our society, IMO. This is why, I wanted a section on the percieved harmful effects of astrology in our society. siddharth 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This was just semi-protected so anons cannot edit it. This was caused by 32.106.141.58 but is unfortunate for 59.92.40.65 who did not exceed the revert limit. Try starting an account! Marskell 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The most feared topic among astrologers

Here is copy of the deleted topic of discussion on - Need for Specialist astrologers" - to which there have been no comments / opinions expressed for the last 3 months. Let the lovers of astrology (general public) know the truth from the learned commentrators on astrology.

Need for specialist astrologers

Now a days we find that most of astrologers worldwide intend to show that they are specialist in different branches of astrology, & also guide the aspirants. The debate is whether their claims can have some basis.

Vedic astrology has the richest literature covered in over 400,000 aphorisms, gifted by the Sages & Acharyas in the last over 5 millenniums. It has three main branches viz, astronomy (Siddhanta), Samhitas (dealing with mundane, meteorology, omens & portents, constructional matters, electional astrology etc.) & Predictive (Hora) astrology. The predictive astrology has various branches such as Horoscopy (Jaataki), Electional (Muhurt) astrology, Annual (Tajik) horoscopy, Horary (Prashna) astrology, Female (Streejaataki) horoscopy, Recconstructional (Nashtajaatakam) astrology, Jaimini Sutras (a special system of prediction), Astro - Palmistry (Graha- Samudriki), Remedial astrology etc. etc. But none of the exponents blessed us with treatises on more than one subject. The only except is the great Acharya Varaha Mihir – who gifted us excellent treatises on the three said branches.

Some of the exponents have opined that they have learnt this subject not only in this birth but is the outcome of their Karmas & study in their last births also. It is impossible for human being to learn & master one branch of this futurity science in one birth.

When none on the Hindu exponents have dared to touch more than one subject of Hindu astrology, it is now thought possible by modern astrologers to claim specialization in more than one branch of astrology.

Further when we have now specialist in the field of each branch of the knowledge like engineering, science, medicine, law, economics … ; how come that we have not felt the need for specialist astrologers in specific branch of astrology, & have been accepting astrologers capable to guide aspirants in more than one of its branches.

To cite an example, one may find astrologers generally engaged in predictive astrology; venturing to render guidance in electional branch, but when he would be asked as to how many books he has read on the subject or rather he possesses in his library; the answer shall be obvious.

One may excuse an astrologer claiming specialisation in “Remedial Astrology” if the results do not come, consoling oneself that it may be effect of his Karmas in this & last birth. But how come you can excuse an astrologer who has rendered guidance to an aspirant, who does not have even a single book on electional astrology in his library.

We all understand limitations of knowledge in any field, but that does not authorize one to claim master of different fields, especially in astrology.

--shridharvk , 2, March 2006 (UTC)

It is not surprising that there are no comments / discussions on this topic for the last one month. Astrologers shun, rather fear to talk on this topic for the reasons best known to them.

I invite astrologers to have frank discussion on this topic.

--shridharvk , 4, April 2006 (UTC)

Why would you expect astrologers to flock to your online debate? I think you should go to an astrological conference, where you will find those who may be interested in talking to you. Aquirata 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

There's nothing wrong with specializing, but it's not for everyone. I'll answer anyone's question about anything to the best of my knowledge, look up the answer if I don't have it or ask someone else. If someone comes to me for guidance, I'll give them guidance based on my life experience as well as my astrological knowledge. The one thing I have no intention of doing is dodging around and fudging up the question with a lot of talk about past lives and karma, of which absolutely nobody can legitimately claim they have any first-hand knowledge. Doovinator 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL. As opposed to first hand knowledge about what possible effect bodies of silicate rock or hydrogen and helium orbiting many AUs distant could have on human personality? Indeed, lets not fudge the question. Marskell 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The question exactly. The study of this is known as astrology, just as the study of the mutation of human genes brought about by powerful invisible rays emanating from bodies many parsecs distant, let alone AUs, is known as evolution. Doovinator 01:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Heck no. That's not what evolution is. Please do read the wikipedia article on evolution. And please note the many experimental evidences, backing the theory.siddharth 04:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Heck yes. The idea that invisible cosmic rays can cause the genetic mutations which lead to evolution is widely accepted, read up yourself.Doovinator 11:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you misunderstood it. Not all mutation is caused by electromagnetic radiation, and there is much more to evolution than mutation. Besides, there is a world of difference between astrology and evolution. There's tons of experimental evidence for evolution. Where's the experimental evidence for astrology? siddharth 12:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Not all" is not what I said. That mutation can be caused by invisible rays from stars billions of miles distant is accepted by science, that the same can be said for effects on human events is what astrology contends. That it can't be "disproven" by a certain critical "tonnage" of crappy, biased experiments isn't astrology's concern. Doovinator 18:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think background radiation from the Earth is the bigger effect, but yes, one can measure particles and rays coming a long way off. Oddly, noone has ever measured anything which seems to interact with DNA, brains or anything else with a non-random effect such as "making them more outgoing". There just does not seem to be "more-outgoing-rays" out there...

Mutations are pretty basic stuff as phenomena goes. That being a great athlete or intellectual is similarly basic and can be changed by some sort of un-seen/-measured effect is quite another kind of phenomena. It is quite like saying that since gravity can affect bodies with mass at a distance, so brown-spotted cows must be able to reprogram software at a distance. Lundse 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Doovinator 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Doov misses the point about the link between cosmic rays and evolution. Yes, cosmic rays are known to be one source of mutations. NO, mutations are not evolution. Gene mutations, from whatever source, are mostly without consequence. Some are fatal. A few turn out to be randomly beneficial. That's the deck of cards that evolution has to play with. SO different from a speculative direct relationship between planetary positions and human traits. El Ingles 18:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge of astrology

Exactly what I thought when presented with astrology. It makes the exact same anount of sense, note that I actually have said more regarding the workings of astrology than "huh" and that this is actually entirely unnecessary, the results matter... Lundse 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you know nothing about the workings of astrology, something you've made abundantly clear. Doovinator 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In your blind zest to defend astrology, you're missing the point. What Lundse is doing is applying the scientific methodology to astrology, and for this, knoweldge of astrology is irrelevant. For example, you don't need to know thermodynamics, but you can still see that it works each time you drive a car. On the other hand, no controlled experiments has ever shown astrology to work. siddharth 06:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lundse has been passing off opinion for knowledge. Why should he stop now? It's types like him that makes it easy for me to pick up chicks at parties. The Lundses of the world inadvertantly enhance my social life. You to should employ a little psychological jujitsu with the Lundses of the world to improve your love life. Andrew Homer 05:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with my opinions and the irritating things I told you about eg. hyperdimensional theory I suggest you answer me and tell me what is wrong. As it is you just make personal attacks. And if you do not stop, I wil file a complaint about it since I have had quite enough now. Lundse 09:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's tying you to the computer and forcing you to comment? Doovinator 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Doovinator, I don't understand you're previous statement. Are you supporting Andrews personal attack?! siddharth 06:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lundse has indeed been passing off opinion for knowledge; that statement I support. Doovinator 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What opinions are these? The ones on scientific validity? I am afraid you do not really seperate understanding astrology and understanding science - I know about the latter and can apply certain methods and understandings to various subjects, including ones I know very little about (hence my insistence on talking about results). I do not know about the methodologies of astrology and noone has yet been able to make any argument as to why I should, they (eg. you and Homer) just claim I do not know what I am talking about. Please note that when I talk about testing, it makes very little sense to attack me for not understanding astrology - you might as well chastice me for not knowing about fishing rods, neither is relevant. Lundse 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What's amazing is that you keep defending this absolutely untenable position -- no, you're even proud of your lack of astrological knowledge! Just as astrologers without knowledge of the scientific method cannot properly test the objective validity of astrology, scientists (let alone skeptics or debunkers) cannot objectively validate astrology without astrological knowledge. It is that simple, and the sooner you realize that, the better for everyone. Aquirata 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. One can test eg. whether a car can drive without knowing about engines. And one can test astrological claims if one only knows what those claims are. Certainly, one would need the help of astrologers to find those claims (and probably further on; making out horoscopes, predictions, etc. to test). If I claimed I could see the future, would you need to read all my books before testing it? Or could you just check if what I claimed would happen actually happened? I am amazed that you cannot see this, but I think it explains a lot about your writings the last months (and why you agree with AH's personal attacks). Lundse 01:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No car can drive. It requires a driver. You seem to know what all of them are already. Beg me. Get on your knees. Kiss my ring. Mayhap I shall help you. I might actually think about reading one or two, yes. I claim the sun will rise tomorrow. Wait and see. Oh, we see it all right.Personal attacks again. When did Aquirata agree? Doovinator 02:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've undone Doovinator's mutilation of Lunse's comments above and put them into a single post. He can feel free to rewrite them so his position is clearer. But in future don't insert comments into the middle of peoples comments, it makes the talk page unreadable. Jefffire 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So look in the history. Doovinator 13:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology as a science

I've always viewed astrology as a science. Not a "hard" science, like physics (although wander over to particle physics sometime if you think physics is actually a "hard" science), but a "soft" science like psychology or sociology. One can take measurements of the race, income, social standing, etc. of a population, but can't possibly state that little Tameka Jones, whose mother is black and whose father is a Welsh/Asian plumber making $47,000 per year, will therefore grow up to be a veterinarian. Astrology is the same way. One can see that someone has a Gemini sun, Aquarius moon and Leo rising and therefore state that they are likely to be talkative, romantically attracted to intellectual types and drawn to theatrics, but to surmise that they will therefore be a movie star and not an athlete or a housewife or a physicist is a whole different ball of wax. Astrology follows very rigid scientific principles; if you don't think so try to draw and interpret a chart sometime, but the application and interpretation of the geometric patterns formed by the planets as they relate to individual lives is of necessity a fuzzy and imperfect thing. The same rules which apply to musical harmonics apply to astrological interpretation, but to scientifically analyze a clarinet solo, for example, and state the individual notes which lead to a blue mood or a jazzy and excited feeling is a very difficult and imprecise science--though a science it indeed is, see music theory--although absolutely everyone instinctively knows the difference, in their soul and in their bones. Such is astrology as well. Doovinator 01:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This also makes it testable using statistical methodology. It fails. Jefffire 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lack of evidence is different from evidence of lack. Your conclusion is called logical fallacy. Ignoring evidence, on the other hand, is evidence of ignorance. Aquirata 12:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to science. It is different from mathamatics. To begins, lets see some papers from reliable sources to back up your claim of evidence. Nature will suffice. Jefffire 12:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is only one paper from Nature and it is highly controversial with no basis in astrology. Piper Almanac 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear me, looks like there is nothing then... Jefffire 10:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Jupiter has no moons for those refusing to look in the telescope. After all, publications in Nature are a result of random mutations, so one needs to look elsewhere for enlightenment. Aquirata 10:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you challenging the reliability of Nature? Jefffire 10:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology Wikiproject

I wanted to make an announcement that I started a much needed astrology wikiproject today in order to improve and organize the astrological content on Wikipedia. I'm looking for people with some sort of background or expertise in the subject to join the project. Or just anyone that would be willing to help out. If you are interested then please check out the project page. --Chris Brennan 00:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, Chris - thanks for setting this up! Aquirata 01:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

NOR

"Personality tests, however, do not test astrology claims because astrology does not claim correlation to them. Also, experiments based on personality tests may be flawed because they lack controls for contextual errors." These sentences (and subsequent) are textbook original research and should be removed. Marskell 10:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been a number of undiscussed major POV, OR or Unreliably sourced claims recently edited into the validity section to make special pleading cases for astrology. They violate WP:NPOV#pseudoscience and WP:V pretty heavily. Jefffire 11:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology

A vote is taking place on the deletion of the Objective validity of astrology article which is the main page for the section within this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology. Lumos3 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The psuedo-academics are at it again. The Inquisition occurred DURING the Renaissance. These debunker psuedo-sceptics can't accept a simple concept that scientific research tools have YET to catch-up with Astrology, a valid field for 5,000 years. If every scientific research tool that can be invented has already been invented, then why is the Patent Office still open? Andrew Homer 19:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok... --Chris Brennan 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro to objective validity

Aquirata, you reverted the statement "While astrology is a very controversial subject, there is a clear consensus among the scientific community that there is no verified scientific basis for its beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary[6]."

That's not POV, it's a true, sourced fact. I am going to reinsert that, But I want to discuss it first. Also, please don't delete sourced statements, without discussing it first like what Doovinator did. That seems like vandalism siddharth 10:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the wording as it stands is that it tends to "teach the controversy". I prefer the version that srin cites above (but then I would, wouldn't I). Marskell 11:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Siddharth version is much better. There is a clear scientific consensus and it is dishonest not to present that. Jefffire 11:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason your wording was POV is that this view must be presented much later in the article. See: Wikipedia:Define and describe, Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions. Whether astrology is objectively valid is irrelevant to most astrologers and most clients. What we need as an introduction is a definition of what astrology is. Criticising something you haven't defined makes no sense. It is this same reason that you don't see criticism of science, religion, etc, in the introductory sentences. In fact, the introduction mus t be left to practitioners of astrology, science, religion, etc, because only they know what the subject matter is. Aquirata 14:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the situation. Astrology is "defined" in the main introduction to the article. I put the sentence in the introduction to the objective validity. Also, the sentence I inserted is a fact, not opinion(Do you agree?). Since you obviously misunderstood it, I'm inserting the sentences again. If you have any problems, please discuss it here before making changes. siddharth 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the mistake is mine. Excuses include lack of time and being on the edge after continual reverts by another editor. Apologies. Aquirata 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology and science

• Astrology is not controversial among astrologers and much of the public, but is "very controversial" only with regard to modern science.
• The Humanist article presents opinion, not facts or data.
• Removed earlier mention of acausal, discussed later.
• Added argument and citation against using self-reporting questionnaires (personality tests).
• Added references to strong astrological claims in single-trait testing. Note, these are claims and can use "non-scientific" sources.
• Added claim of bias among scientific researchers.

Piper Almanac 15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I changed the name given the problems everyone keeps pointing out with it. The paragraphs all basically discuss astrology and science so I think it accurate enough.

I'm also using the present perfect "has been controversial"—because, well, it has been but to say that it is is probably inaccurate. Scientists aren't shouting it about at it conferences as far I know. Marskell 15:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the name change and recent tweaks. Zeusnoos 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear any confusion, the fact that I referred to is that there is a clear consensus within the contemporary scientific community that there is no verified scientific basis for its beliefs. While I don't agree with the content, I'm glad to see your attempt at a constructive edit to the article, Piper Almanac. Well done! - siddharth 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So do you consider research psychologists a part of the scientific community or not? Based on the research journals I started listing on the OVA talk page, there is no such consensus, unless of course somewhere is a similar pact created by an org such as the APA to cease and desist research dealing with astrology. Zeusnoos 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point Zeusnoos. My question is, did the research papers follow the scientific method? Did the psychologists perform any repeatable, controlled experiments to test their claims? Importantly, were they published in scientific peer-reviewed journals? If there is any such research paper which does support astrology, please do reference and include that.

To answer your question, I don't consider such research psychologists whose works aren't published in peer-reviewed scientific journals as a part of the mainstream scientific community, because psychology is very fuzzy and can easily deviate from the scientific method. It's very difficult to check the validity of such research papers. There are unfortunately many cranks disguised as psychologists. siddharth 18:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure there are crank psychologists. However, the journals I listed that present the results of scientific research are what you would find in a university library. For instance, psychology journals at university of Michigan:

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/projour.html

Here's a fuller list of peer-reviewed psychology journals:

http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/about/covlist.html

Not on this list is the "British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology" but that's because it was split into two journals.

This is why I protested the uncommented deletion of the extroversion studies on OVA. Zeusnoos 19:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like this Zeus: "a clear consensus that there is no verified scientific basis...yip-yap...particularly within the physical sciences such as astronomy. Behavioural sciences (k?) such as psychology have shown a greater willingness to at least examine astrology's claims, although these disciplines have themselves been subject to criticism over adherence to the scientific method."

I know the last clause is a caveat on top of a caveat but we should cover our bases. This will of course need a source. A meta comment on research as such rather than an individual paper. Marskell 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding something like this with some qualifications. I prefer Siddharth's wording on the OVA deletion page "the majority of the scientific community". As far as psychology goes, the field itself is divided. The criticisms over methodology are aimed more at substudies which are not scientific such as psychoanalysis and similar theories used in clinical practice. Otherwise, when I was a student and research assistant in psych, the research standards, statistical methods, etc, were strict. The dept. was notable in psychophysiology, perception studies, industrial psych., etc. I think 'social sciences' may be more accurate since it covers sociology as well as psychology. Zeusnoos 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For the science community per se it should be stronger wording than "majority" (which can implicitly be taken as suggesting a minority still debating). I'll actually accept the criticism that scientists don't even bother to look at it seriously—as Dean says (is he the loony you reference above?) "its like believing fairies". In the "hard" sciences (in my amateur opinion) its not as if a majority brings it up to refute some small dissenting group—its simply not mentioned in the same way an Earth centered universe is not mentioned. So someone asks Stephen Hawking his opinion at a lecture. Answer: "rubbish" (sorry for the appeal to authority). Of course, the hard sciences can be wrong.

My question for psychology would be: are the criticized subdisciplines those which are producing the research related to astrology? Marskell 22:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, the answer to your questions Sid are all in the Objective validity of astrology article. Aquirata 20:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, and this is why I don't object to removing the redhead study (or at least bracketing it as something claimed by astrology), even though the only critical response to it was looney. As far as Urban-Lurain goes, he might have gained more credibility if his work had been first published in a journal. Do you know if he has produced other research in this area since then? Zeusnoos 20:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any, but will write to the author to find out. Aquirata 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Letter sent. Aquirata 07:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Added 'fact' tag to 'clear consensus' sentence. The ref provided doesn't back up the statement made. Aquirata 20:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder to editors. Astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific information. Jefffire 10:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted Jefffire's modifications with the exception of his removal of the word 'questionable'. Justification:

• Astrological journals are perfectly reliable sources of information of astrological research. This has been explained to you a number of times by various editors. Noone shares your POV, so please stop doing edits of this nature.
• Your addition of the text "Further study of these claims found no such link" is not warranted. The study cited in the preceding sentence is dated 2005; your references are 1997 or older. Please provide an up-to-date reference if you feel strongly about this.
• What Randi is practicing is called pseudoscience by many scientists, skeptics and debunkers. He writes the rules and he is also the judge on his own panel. This is a debunking campaign with no credibility whatsoever. If you want a further reference to back up the statement, then tag the sentence, but please don't remove others' work without a good reason.

I hope the above will be sufficient. However, please feel free to argue your case. Aquirata 13:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A fair few other editors have explained to you why astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific information, including an administrator. Discuss this if you like but please do not distort the truth. This is especially important since it is exactly this kind of insistance on unreliable sources which will have been the cause of the imminant death of the article objective validity of astrology. Astrological journals are not, and are never likely to become, reliable sources of scientific information. Jefffire 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Randi runs a competition, not a "debunking campaign" in the million dollar challenge. The rules of which have been verified as fair and honest by outside investigators. Jefffire 14:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make a distinction here. Astrological research is not scientific research. So, astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific information. Are we agreed on that? siddharth 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, you haven't even stated that you'd be willing to cooperate on astrological articles, so why should your opinion matter here? You keep repeating the same things over and over without a logical argument. If you take the stance that "astrological journals are not reliable sources of scientific information", then how can you accept scientific journals as reliable sources of astrological information? Furthermore, how can you accept then even astrological journals as reliable sources of scientific information when it suits your purpose but reject them when they present information that goes against your beliefs? Do you understand the contradictions? With this kind of thinking, we'll never get anywhere. If your intention is to contribute to the astrological articles on Wikipedia, then my guess is that you'll have to make a move from your current position (studying astrology would also help). I would also be interested to find out who those outside investigators of Randi were and what they found. Do you have a reliable source for your statement? Aquirata 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, Sid! Just because something is astrological, it cannot be considered scientific? Is this what you are trying to say? The 20th century has seen countless numbers of scientific inquiries into astrology. Do you have any knowledge of astrology and astrological research? Aquirata 18:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In a sense I agree with Aquirata (holy shit! ;). If for some reason astrological research did wind up in Nature then I wouldn't argue with including it. The journal/source is the paramount consideration not how we label the research after the fact. Marskell 19:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy sh*t!!! Aquirata 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, though I suppose I'm agreeing with Jeff too. Anyhow, start from the source the paper is in, not the paper itself. I can live with psychology journals that are university affiliated, for instance. Marskell 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's better! :) I don't quite understand "start[ing] from the source the paper is in, not the paper itself." Do you mean affiliation? Aquirata 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That means correlation is not a reliable source of scientific information. Jefffire 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This comedy of errors can be solved if you realize the ambiguity in the adjective 'astrological'. I don't think the phrase "astrological research" should be used in this article (or whatever incarnation of OVA) because: 1) this phrase is used by astrologers to cover something such as someone's views on the meaning of the Nodes of the Moon in solar return charts. 2) this phrase could mean research about astrology or about astrological claims. THis could be scientific research but not necessarily. Scientific research in this context is scientific research about astrology. I think 1) is used more frequently - by astrologers.Zeusnoos 20:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Point noted, but this madness of using unreliable sources has to end. Article Objective validity of Astrology will probably be deleted soon and a major reason for that is the input of large numbers of sections verified only from unreliable sources like this and a flagrant disregard of WP:Reliable Sources. Can we imagine the state of articles like Evolution if this insistance on unreliable journals were to be continue there? The blurb of Correlation makes it clear that it is a POV publication and not a scientific source. It is not in any concievable way, shape or form an acceptable reliable source of scientific information. No amount of insisting that the rules are "ambiguous" and open to "interpratation" as Aquirata suggest will ever change that. Jefffire 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell's long-winded thoughts on sourcing

To answer, reiterate, and so forth.

1 a) Zeus' observation that "astrological research" is a misnomer best sums up my last post. We don't/shouldn't include "astrological research"—we include scientific research about astrology. Defined as: work published in a recognized scientific publication, with an obvious impact factor, and/or affiliated with a university etc. If Nature says dogs are born with the desire to not crap in my living room, then I accept the point's inclusion even if owning five puppies tells me it's BS. The place of publication is paramount and ultimately determines whether we can call it scientific. We've waxed lyrical about the scientific method here (myself as guilty as anyone) but perhaps this has missed the point: "scientific" for the purpose of Wikipedia is what the Real World says "scientific" is. In a sense, we trust journals like Nature because a (somewhat) formalized culture of science has developed that says information systems like Wikipedia must trust journals like Nature. Does this comes close to a Hiedeggerian critique? Holy shit again.

"Does this..." - Closer to a Foucaultian observation. Zeusnoos 01:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

1 b) Science can talk about whatever it wants to. If your response to the above is "but why should we trust a science journal to talk about astrology" the answer is the last four hundred years of knowledge gathering (or "information discourse", as you like).

2) Per point 1, I believe we should treat Correlation as a dubious source. I doubt it has an impact factor (citations by scientists in other publications); I doubt you could cite it to present a point of fact in a grad dissertation at a modern western university; I doubt a university would consider it a "real" publication in hiring a lecturer. Of course, you can show me wrong on all that. Kepler (?) college alone won't do it however ;).

3) As an important caveat to point 1 and 2, for Wiki purposes: dubious sources are permissible in articles about themselves. This is an established part of Wiki culture and it's implicit on WP:V. I do not believe, everything else being equal, Correlation should be considered a reliable source but I can accept it on the astrology article (as opposed to the main Mars article, say). The questions then are how do we deploy it, present a caveat etc.

That's my thoughts for now. Marskell 23:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your clarity in reasoning. Let me digest and respond accordingly. Aquirata 00:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When discussing scientific studies on astrology, M and J are correct, Correlations is dubious. That's the way of the world. However, I think it's acceptable to discuss material from such sources when dealing with the topic of astrology in general (or in the context of certain subtopics) because there is no astrology without astrologers and what they think and discuss. When I want to know something about believers in alien abduction, I might have to go to dubious sources to find out how certain themes developed and are perpetuated (like blues vs greys). I might want to know how the whole world-ending-in-2012 thing started, and reputable journals and authors of Mayan anthropology or archaeology are not likely to reveal this. Instead I have sniff out from believer sources that this reading of the Mayan calendar can be traced directly to some cult leader in Oregon. Zeusnoos 01:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is largely my position. I have no objections whatsoever to Correllation being used as a source for astrologers beliefs or practices. But when it comes to scientific matter, such as validity of the subject or stistical tests, then it is not acceptable. You may use Correllation as a source throughout the article, But not within the section "scientific analysis of astrology".Jefffire 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Correlation is not so dubious as a source of astrological claims. The fact that it "appears" to bear some resemblence to something scientific is perhaps irrelevant from the scientific POV. In truth Correlation is a very strong source of astrological claims that astrologers would tend to strongly agree with. You can hardly find a better source than this to represent strong astrological beliefs. The other books and articles, which have appeared in OVA supporting astrology also represent the strongest of all astrological claims. Marskell has stated "astrological sources for astrologial claims." This is where you go to find them. Piper Almanac 02:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But you are using it as a source for scientific claims. Claiming that there is a correllation between signs and vocation is a scientific claim. Jefffire 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reinserted your edits with a slight rewording to make it clear the sources can't be regarded as scientific. With luck this will be a happy compromise. Jefffire 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the claims of astrology appear to take the form of correlations, and are even presented as correlations. Piper Almanac 02:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell:

• 1a: No, scientific research into astrology is research following the scientific method. It doesn't have to be published in a mainstream scientific publication. You can research UFO phenomena in a scientific way, couldn't you? Would this research be published in a mainstream scientific journal? Most certainly not. Is this research scientific? Most certainly is because it follows the scientific method. The place of publication is a separate issue.
• 1b: Mainstream scientific journals haven't been publishing astrological articles regularly, therefore their editorial board would be incapable of recognizing acceptable material. They are not a reliable source of astrological information.
• 2: This point falls because it relies on the above. Correlation is a reliable source of astrological information and astrological research and scientific research into astrology. It meets every criteria of a reliable publication.
• 3: I appreciate your gesture, but this point becomes moot in light of the above.

Aquirata 10:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot find reliable scientific sources for astrological claims then that is your problem, not ours. Wikipedia's policies will not be compromised because the best you can do is not good enough. Jefffire 13:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

by the way, astrolog?

In the number of years that I have been dealing with this topic, I never heard an astrologer called an 'astrolog'. The only use of this word I've seen is as chart calculation software that ran on IBM computers before Windows. Can some one fill me in on this name? Some interesting names for astrologers can be found in the 17th century -- such as Astrologaster. Maybe a list of historical appellations could be included on the history of astrology page. Zeusnoos 01:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. I've never heard of it either and I read a lot. Piper Almanac 02:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally! Thank you! --Chris Brennan 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen "astrolog" used for at least 30 years, but not for an astrologer. It referred to a list of aspects, etc. for a month or whatever. Doovinator 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Astromancy & Astrology -- The Same Thing?

"Astromancy" is the same thing as "Astrology," correct? The Astromancy page states otherwise; someone with more knowledge on this subject should go change it if the two are actually synonymous (it seems that they are). --172.147.89.38 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Astromancy refers to a type of astrology-influenced magic; not really the same thing, as astrology claims no magical component. Doovinator 01:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mars effect & Ertel

Aquirata is adamant that all sourced criticisms of the Mars Effect studies be removed since the 2005 reference is more chronologically advanced. However upon reading the reference it is clear that the bulk of it is drawn from information published before the 1997 skeptical inquirer report, and what comes afterwards doesn't actually address all of the skeptical inquirer criticisms. I've written the valid criticisms of Ertel's and Gauquilin's work and sourced them. The article as it stands in Aquirata's prefered version is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. I remind editors that Wikipedia is not here for them to publish their hidden history of the word or to start their overturning of the scientific orthodoxy. Please overturn the scientific orthodox in the real world, then you may do so here. Jefffire 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not saying that you actually read an astrological article in an astrological journal? Holy sh*t, J, what will you think of next?

Regarding your claim that "it is clear that the bulk of it [i.e. the list of references in the article] is drawn from information published before the 1997 skeptical inquirer report, and what comes afterwards doesn't actually address all of the skeptical inquirer criticisms", let's look at some chronology (extracted from the article):

• ‘The case is already stronger than that for almost any area of research in psychology.’ Wrote Eysenck and Nias in 1982, concerning the work of Francoise and Michel Gauquelin.
• Later in 1988 Geoffrey Dean, doyen of the sceptics, wrote an approving postscript to a review of the Gauquelin edifice, concluding optimistically, ‘One looks forward to his autobiography.’
• In 1987, Suitbert Ertel, in a visit to the Gauquelin’s ‘laboratory’ happened to notice that as well as birth-data of the 2888 eminent sportsmen of known birthdate and time, published, there were in addition 1503 unpublished, less-eminent sportsmen. The latter data [showed] dips ... at the ‘key sectors’ just where peaks occurred in the published data. Ertel published this finding (Figure 1) in what was then a hard-to-find US journal the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Suitbert Ertel, ‘Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes’ Mars Effect: Association co-varies with Eminence’, JSE 1988, 2,1).
• Then something more terrible happened: not merely his suicide but the destruction of his entire database, in 1991.
• The hard-hitting sceptics’ articles came out a few years later, publicising what Ertel called ‘bias’ and what they called cheating. Overall there has been to date an excellent sequence of 11 articles in the JSE:

• 1988, 2,1 Is There a Mars Effect? Michel Gauquelin
• 1988, 2,1 Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes' Mars Effect: Association Co-Varies With Eminence Prof. Ertel
• 1990, 4,1 Planetary Influences on Human Behavior ("Gauquelin Effect"): Too Absurd for a Scientific Explanation? Arno Mueller
• 1992, 6,3 The Gauquelin Effect Explained? Comments on Arno Mueller's Hypothesis of Planetary Correlations Prof. Ertel
• 1993, 7,2 Puzzling Eminence Effects Might Make Good Sense Prof. Ertel
• 1993, 7,3 Dutch Investigations of the Gauquelin Mars Effect Jan Nienhuys
• 1997, 11,1 Biased Data Selection in Mars Effect Research Ertel & Ken Irving
• 1997, 11,1 Is the "Mars Effect" Genuine? Kurtz, Nienhuys and Sandhu
• 1997, 11,3 The "Mars Effect" As Seen by the Committee PARA J. Dommanget
• 2000, 14,3 The Mars Effect Is Genuine: On Kurtz, Nienhuys, and Sandhu's Missing the Evidence Prof. Ertel & Ken Irving
• 2000, 14,3 Bulky Mars Effect Hard to Hide: Comment on Dommanget's Account of the Belgian Skeptics' Research Prof. Ertel

• OK, so after looking at that list, are you trying to imply that something that was published in the Skeptical Enquirer in 1997 (and "important" by your standards) was not addressed by Ertel and Irving three years later? You've got to be kidding me. Sorry, but the scientific orthodoxy stood in support of the Ertel-Gauquelin eminence effect in the year 2000. Unless of course you have a more recent reference. Aquirata 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A few more things before you go and revert my edit again hastily and without base:

• First, this is what Nienhuys says in SE: "The so-called Mars effect has haunted science for forty years now, but there's a light at the end of the tunnel. It may have been an illusion after all." It may have been, he's not sure.
• Second, the 1997 SE article is "a condensed and amended version of a paper presented at the World Skeptic's Conference, June 20-23, 1996, in Amherst, New York." That's 1996.
• Third, you'll notice good activity in JSE after this conference in 1997. The second article that year was co-authored by Nienhuys.
• Fourth, look at the title of the second last article. You will notice the author of your much beloved 1997 Skeptical Enquirer article. A direct reference.

In summary, please spare us from your uninformed edits. Aquirata 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata, your research into the sources and authors on both sides of this issue has raised this article to a higher level of historical accuracy. I was considering doing it myself but you beat me to it and I think you did a better job than I would have done. Thank you for the hard work. Piper Almanac 01:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Piper, Thanks for your kind words. J inspired me in a way because he bugged the heck out of me for doing his senseless reverts over and over, all the while carefully observing the 3RR. At any rate, I'm glad we were able to put this issue to bed. Aquirata 09:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"This analysis, based on citation frequencies, rules out sampling bias in choosing the athletes in both directions, pro and con" is an OR statement (more simply, so is "a very simple analysis") and I removed it. The criticism is sourced and per due weight it belongs. Marskell 10:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

By way of a compromise I'm reducing the size of the Ertel section to include just his claims and a link to the work and combining it with the other research. As a consequence the criticisms of the work will also be taken out to be covered only by the overarching "not scientifically peer reviewed" criticism of the whole section (which is probably the most important. There really isn't any need to go into the level of detail that was there before, and this solves a lot of the content disputes such as undue weight and the like. Additionally I'm making a distinction between Gauqurlin's (sp) work (which is indisputably notable, if heavily slated), and later work which isn't as notable. Jefffire 12:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points, pretty well balanced, and overall the section reads well. I say, good work all around. Doovinator 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Kindly become familiar with Ertel's work before tampering. Ertel did not collect data. He used all the Mars sports data already collected by the researchers. This included all of Gauquelin's unused "lesser athletes" data, as described above by Aquirata, and the CFEPP's unused Algerian data (a clear bias in Irving's view).

Ertel's method was extremely simple. He ranked the athletes by how many hits they had in 5 agreed-upon sports anthologies. That is all he did. This is not rocket science. This method makes sampling bias irrelevant, the more athletes the better. Ertel stated this clearly so this is not OR.

Ertel's analysis is the most relevant finding and has had the greatest impact on the whole Mars effect affair. It has remained without serious challenge since it was first published 18 years ago. It has been applied with similar results to all the Mars-athletes experiments, including the CSICOP (Zelen), Para, and CFEPP tests, as Aquirata has already stated above.

The suggestion that Ertel's analysis has not been peer-reviewed is completely untenable because it has been critically discussed and written about among his peers since the time that he first published it nearly two decades ago. Peer criticism of Ertel's analysis, such as it is, is not difficult to find. I am reverting to the earlier correct version. Piper Almanac 16:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it hasn't been peer reviewed, I'm saying it hasn't been scientifically peer reviewed, which is what is important. Until Ertel publishes in a mainstream journal his work can't be scientifically respected. This is the primary reason Ertel's work has gone "unchallenged", because from a scientific perspective it doesn't even exist. I've reworded the relevent sections to make a clear distinction between peer review (which even creationist journals have) and scientific peer review. Jefffire 09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My changes have been completely reverted with the claim they are POV. Seeing as how I've made no factual changes, and in fact taken out skeptical arguements, I don't know what to make of that. Jefffire 10:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you will not get away with your POV wording. It's a fact that the Ertel eminence effect has not been challenged for six years. That it hasn't been published in a mainstream scientific journal is irrelevant because the skeptics are well aware of Ertel's work, they have been publishing their views in the same journal for many years. The rest of the scientific community couldn't care less, and wouldn't even read the article even if it was published in Nature or Science. The chances of having something like this published in a mainstream publication today is practically nil, so your argument is political in nature (appealing to authority). Before you venture again on a mission of this kind, please familiarize yourself with relevant research and the topic being discussed. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to get the facts straight. Aquirata 10:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's guidelines on Verifiability. Essentially what you are claiming in this section is that the Mars effect has been proved and scientifically verified. However as in WP:V and WP:RS, it says that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. It doesn't matter if all the skeptics know about this journal, the fact remains that this is not an exceptional source. Please respect these wikipedia guidelines. Jefffire 10:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you define an exceptional claim? Aquirata 10:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the assertation that the Mars effect is real and has been scientifically verified is not an exceptional claim? I think a fair few astronomers would be surprised, to say the least. Jefffire 11:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have asked a question. You are jumping to conclusions. Aquirata 12:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional claims are things that are surprising, counter-inuitive, fantstical, dubious or otherwise "exceptional". To get to the issue at hand, I think we can fairly say that Ertel's claims are exceptional. Jefffire 12:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An objective definition, please. Science cannot be based on 'gut feel'. Aquirata 13:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you never read WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence? Based on your flagrant abuses of WP:RS, mabey you haven't. Now, how about an answer from you? Are Ertels claims unexceptional? Jefffire 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you have changed the meaning of the two sentences by assuming that Eretel and Gauquelin are the same person. You keep doing edits of similar nature (assuming that all astrological claims have been made by Ertel), and wasting your and others' time in the process. Please stop meddling in this article if you have nothing to add. Aquirata 14:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made no such assumption, your arguements are quickly veering off into irrational absurdity. I've been making it clear that Ertel's claims are distinct from Guaquelin's. Please answer my earlier question, are Ertel's claims unexceptional? Jefffire 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you chat about 'exceptional claims' and then in the background butcher my addition to the article without saying anything about it here. Secondly, your "edit" now says this: "In 1988 and 1996, German Professor of psychology Suitbert Ertel published the most recent claim for a Mars effect suggesting it increased in proportion to the eminence of the athletes.[26][27][28] and claimed an astrological correllation to physicians (the Saturn effect).[29][30]" You have just removed the author of the latter claim, which is Gauquelin! Ertel has nothing to do with the Saturn effect. The MArs effect has nothing to do with the Saturn effect. The sentence makes no sense in its current version. Please read up on astrological research before making any edits of this nature. Aquirata 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I will correct the conglameration of the two then. If you had mentioned in a calm and rational manner rather than making vague accussations and blindly reverting then the error could have been corrected earier. Jefffire 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata's accusations are anything but vague, but has documented them above and put a lot of work into making it clear. Piper Almanac 16:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The new sentence - "These two claims stemming mostly from Gauquelin's and Ertel's research are presently unchallenged." is extremely POV, dishonest and misleading. By the same logic, I could dredge up about a hundred creationist claims which are "unchallenged". The reason the are unchallenged is that there is no need to disprove work until it get published in a proper journal. Please do not try to mislead readers in this manner. Jefffire 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you dispute the truth of the statement? Do you dispute the source? Please explain why you think it is "extremely POV, dishonest and misleading." Aquirata 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I could make a claim today, and then say that it is unchallenged. And as it happens there are plenty of challenges to these works printed pre 1997 on the skeptical enquirer article. Making the claim that they are "unchallenged", when much of it is, and there is no scientific reason to challenge it (since it is viewed as junk science by the mainstream), is an obvious attempt to mislead the reader into believing that is correct. Jefffire 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring the facts. The latest research with respect to eminence on the Saturn effect was published in 1994, and on the Mars effect, in 2000. These remain unchallenged. It is a statement of fact, properly sourced. Aquirata 17:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your ignoring the fact that it is irrelevent and misleading to the reader. I'm willing to bet that there are dozens or astrologers claims in astrologers journals which are "unchallenged". The trick would be to have them unchallenged in a respected scientific publication. Jefffire 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The two claims have been widely discussed with involvement from both sides. Aquirata 17:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the underlying fact that none of these "unchallenged" articles have been published in respected mainstream scientific journals. Until they do, presenting them as "unchallenged" is misleading to the reader. Currently your logic is near identicle to creationist editor's flawed arguements for their journals. Just because everyone knows about them doesn't make them respectable. Jefffire 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which WP policy states that only articles published in 'respected mainstream scientific journals' are relevant? Aquirata 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire, are we to presume that when skeptical researchers hear that someone (in this case a German professor with a reputation for smoking out bias and overstated claims) has overturned their research (and the word does tend to get out about such things) they will calmly refuse to defend themselves and ignore the claims, leaving them unchallenged for years? What sort of skeptics are these? We are accustomed to see skeptics go after every minute detail of claims in even the most trashy sources. I'm sorry but your argument has no credibility. In the world of science, silence is consent. Piper Almanac 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional claims and evidence

It has been argued that astrology research claims and evidence violate WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence and this has gotten into a dispute over the definition of what is "exceptional". Fortunately, all we need do is read the guidelines, as suggested by Jefffire. Here's the definition point-by-point and how astrology research claims stack up.

Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
  • The Mars effect claims are widely known, perhaps even by millions.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
  • This is not a recent development but has been ongoing for over 30 years.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
  • There is no unusual report that anyone has reversed an interest or position.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
  • These claims are supported by published normal science and statistical research methods using well-established protocols. Knowledge of astrology research claims are essential for the prevailing view in the relevant academic community studying astrology, among which are Bath and Hampton Universities in the UK and Kepler College in the US, plus dozens of academics worldwide who are conducting astrology research or replication, or who are writing about astrology research claims both pro and con. There is also sustained interest among less relevant academic communities, including interested scientists, statisticians, philosophers. These communities and individuals would wish to remain informed of the current research and would seek this information at Wikipedia. There is no claim of conspiracy.

Astrology research claims comfortably pass all of these WP criteria. Piper Almanac 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research, Piper - thanks for setting the record straight! Aquirata 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Piper is wrong on each and every count on this one. The belief in the Mar's effect is non-exceptional, but the validity of it would be very much acceptable. Please do not confuse the belief and validity. Jefffire 11:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Objective validity...

[Validity of astrology] seems to be gone, where did the content move? I can't even get a history of that page. And I agree that it should be made more clear in this article that there is no real evidence for the validity of astrology --Lost Goblin

To reply to Lost Goblin and in case anyone else wasn't following the discussion. Per this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objective validity of astrology the validity of page has been deleted. Marskell 12:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of that article was a horrendous move, a colossal blunder; talk about 'skeptics' hijacking certain pages (just as they claim 'the believers' do) and influencing the vote. In reality, these 'skeptics' probably have nothing more than a high-school diploma and get all of their 'NPOV information' from the Internet, as if real people with their filthy POV's didn't put it there. Books and the like are unknown to them, these pseudo-skeptics with their amateurish, Google-obsessed minds (they have NO CLUE how much information has yet to be put on the Internet). OH WELL -- months and months of work and research, dozens of sources and valid links and intricate paragraphs...it's all down the toilet now, it was all for naught and this means that everyone involved (including the 'skeptics') wasted countless hours. This article has gone into the great Internet void (though the article does live on and can be found on many of the Wiki-clone sites all over the Web). This only proves that Wikipedia has just become another angry and raging message board where whomever has the most friends (to influence the vote) and can type in the fanciest manner (so that they sound educated; they don't actually have to be) has their preferred information left in. So thanks Wikipedia; your site is a great beacon of bright-white truth among the disgusting darkness of soiled, POV sources! All hail the Wiki-God and it's unbiased hive-mind. --64.12.116.202 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Marskell 06:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The debunkers (pretending that they're objective sceptics) besides proving their lack of knowledge and lack of integrity on the various Astrology pages have also been personally attacking me on my own talk page. When I dare try to defend myself, they block me out of Wikipedia. So much for honest dialogue. They can't win an argument fairly, so they resort to dirty tricks. Andrew Homer 08:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do not fully understand how you deferentiate between debunkers and skeptics. To me, it seems debunkers are those trying to disprove something and skeptics are those who remain, well, skeptic, about stuff they do not feel has been sufficiently proven. Do you disagree on this?

Also, I will ask you (again) not to claim that "we" have lack of integrity - such a charge is vague and, at least so far, unsubstantiated. If you want to criticize me or anyone else, please do so civily and explicitly. And make sure you stop attacking people first.

And it was not me nor other "debunkers" who blocked you - it was an administrator who saw you making personal attacks. He was not trying to argue either way and may be, for all you know, 100% behind your every argument and a fellow astrologer who believes I am just as much an idiot as you do. He is upholding guidelines which are there so secure a good "working environment" and which make wikipedia more than a discussion forum. Please stop making personal attacks... Lundse 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the Objective validity of astrology article

I have just posted the following at User talk:Deathphoenix (the admin responsible for deleting the article):

I was surprised to see such a brief justification for your decision to delete the Objective validity of astrology article ("What it boils down to is that the arguments for deletion (most of which are valid policy-type of arguments) definitely outweigh the arguments for keep"). I would like to see a bit of elaboration on why 14 months of effort by dozens of editors had to be wasted by a single keystroke. Please post your reply on the Talk:Astrology page. Aquirata 10:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

With a bit of luck, we'll see some justification magically appear here in short order. Aquirata 10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The history of deletion

It started with the following post on Talk:Objective validity of astrology:

• Incidentally, I'd say this article is pretty much superfluous; it looks like a POV fork of Astrology. The lead section of Astrology presents the reader with a neutrally stated and verifiable summary of the validity of the subjectand Astrology#The_objective_validity_of_astrology is sufficient, in my view, as a coverage of this issue. Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Which was followed by:

• Per JzG's concerns over the necessity of this, I have started an AfD. There is, of course, a very good chance of keep, but this is one of the best ways to find out what community thinks of the info we're presenting. Marskell 16:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The actual AfD read as follows:

• Fundamental concern is that this is a POV-fork used as a platform to present questionable, obscure astrological research that would not pass WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV on a more frequented page. The one entry here that has received sufficient attention to warrant Wiki-coverage is the Mars effect, which has its own page. The main astrology article has a section which can be expanded somewhat to include any other critical points. We have an astrology and astronomy to boot, which we can use if we really need comparative analysis. The page is also a gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over. Delete. Marskell 16:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Together with the originator, 30 people argued for deletion (65%), 16 for keeping or not deleting (35%). According to the originator, the AfD should have normally resulted in an automatic keep because the delete votes didn't go over 67% (Marskell: "Three-quarters and above (assuming no sockpuppets etc.) and an admin will generally delete. Two-thirds and below and it will be a "no consensus keep". Between the two is borderline and an admin will use their discretion.").

This is how the matter was closed:

• The result of the debate was Delete. This was a hard one to close and required a LOT of reading. What it boils down to is that the arguments for deletion (most of which are valid policy-type of arguments) definitely outweigh the arguments for keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses

The reasons were covered very clearly by the many people who voted to delete the article. I can't help but feel that if I had been listened to when I complained about the gross abuses of WP:RS, WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and Undue Weight instead of being disregarded, the article may have been saved. Jefffire 11:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In responce to the new additions, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is not the number of votes that is weighted, but the quality of them. A number of keep votes were entirely irration, accussing editors of "scientism" and some were from extremely new or inexperienced editors. These were likely weighted lower, or discounted altogether. Jefffire 12:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

J, I don't dispute your opinion. However, I am waiting for the views of the admin who made the decision to delete. Aquirata 13:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, perhaps there is something there for you to learn about Reliable Sources, since it was your repeated insertion of unreliable sources which brought the article down. You might start at WP:RS. Mabey WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience would be helpful as well. Jefffire 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a CC of my response to Aquirata's talk page:

I took a long to time read the AfD (and believe me, there were so many comments that it took me quite a while). No other AfD closer wanted to put the time and effort into weighing those comments. I was a neutral party who has no vested interested either way in this article. My closing comments may have been, in your mind, somewhat brief, but they were a lot longer than a lot of other AfD closing comments. In any case, I won't change my mind about this because whatever arguments need to be presented were already presented in the AfD, unless you have new information that wasn't already presented in the AfD. If you have any new information to present that will likely result in the overturning of the result of this AfD, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and the instructions in Wikipedia:Deletion review before arguing your case in Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you do so, please let me know so I can look at whatever new information you present so I can also suggest an action (which may be to overturn the results of my AfD closure, depending on the new evidence that you present). Thank you, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add this on top of the arguments above: the fact that this was one of the last AfDs to be closed that day shows how difficult it was to close this AfD. Whatever you may think about my closure of this AfD, please note that I usually close the last AfDs that others don't touch: the ones that are often contentious and have many arguments either way. My closure of this AfD was done in good faith and in doing so, I very carefully looked at the merits of each and every comment. I can assure you that I did not make any hasty decisions when closing this AfD, nor did I do so recklessly. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

DP, I'm not questioning your decision - I simply want to hear about your reasoning that lead to the decision. All I've read so far is that: "the arguments for deletion (most of which are valid policy-type of arguments) definitely outweigh the arguments for keep". Could you expand on that please? Aquirata 13:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my reasoning is that most people arguing for deletion are saying that it's a POV fork. POV forks are not allowed in Wikipedia, and this is against Wikipedia policy. I weigh comments based on Wikipedia policies very seriously. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So basically you took people's comments on the article being a POV fork at face value. Or did you actually look at the article and came to the same conclusion? In the latter case, could you please explain to me what you based your judgment on? Aquirata 15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I took the comments on the article being a POV fork a face value. What I believe about the article itself has no bearing on how I close it. My own feelings and beliefs are irrelevant when I close an AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm sure that you acted according to WP practice and policies. However, it would seem that this approach could be wide open to abuse. Those wanting to force a decision their way need only cite policy violations without having to provide a basis for their opinion. Those arguing rationally but without citing policy violations will naturally lose out. Which is fine because, after all, WP can only reflect the way the community is.

It is also apparent to me now why certain editors are heavy on quoting policies and chopping articles but thin on rationale and substance. Aquirata 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I suppose the same could be true for any type of approach: they'd be open to abuse. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Aquirata appears to believe that Wikipedia policies should be ignored when they conflict with their belief in astrology. I've attempted to explain WP:RS, WP:NPOV#pseudoscience and undue weight on a number of occassion but to no avail, and been treated to personal attacks in response. Jefffire 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again I will ignore your baseless accusations. Aquirata 15:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Aquirata's actions, nor have I looked at the actions of anyone else involved with astrology articles (nor do I have to, since I'm just looking at the AfD and nothing else), so I won't comment on their actions. It doesn't matter to me what anyone believes, including myself. Articles should not go against Wikipedia policies, including articles that I've worked on. I have personally worked on some crufty articles, and some of those articles have also been deleted via AfD because the community consensus can sometimes run counter to my own beliefs. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Articles should never go against Wikipedia policies. Inluding, but not limited to WP:RS, WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and undue weight. Jefffire 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Most people argued that the article was a "POV fork," but did not clarify what POV they meant -was it an astrology POV fork or a skeptic POV fork? Most voters did not say, so the claim that it was a "POV fork" is ambiguous. When I first saw the article it was clearly a skeptic POV fork, as well as against WP:NOT and WP:V. It could have been deleted at that point, but I believe there is a need for this article, because the skeptic nonsense has been responded to by critical astrologers and neutral scientists. As the article shifted toward neutrality, the skeptics begain to complain. To delete the article as a "POV fork" is meaningless since both sides were involved in digging up the facts, and the article was improving through sourcing and research. I'd especially like to hear from an administrator comment on WP:V with regard to the article in question. Piper Almanac 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning behind calling it a fork was explained in the initial nom and in numerous responses to Aquirata. Thirty people happened to agree. Deathphoenix knows what he's doing—the closure was clearly within his discretion. Marskell 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly respect Deathphoenix's decision. I'd just like some clarification on the unexplained items I've mentioned, just so we don't need to go through this whole exercise again. History may repeat itself. Piper Almanac 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Without really knowing too much about the discussions going on with regards to this subject matter, the most common way of dealing with POV forks is to remove the fork and leave the content in the main article, as long as such content is consistent with Wikipedia policies, such as citing sources, verifiability, and Neutral point of view (note that NPOV doesn't necessarily mean that everything has to be neutral, just that both sides of the arguments be presented). Anyways, you can take what I say with a grain of salt, since, as the AfD closer, I only got into this discussion late in the stage. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the article was a mistake by the community. Majorities dont have to be right. Differing opinions exist and will have to be represented in Wikipedia somewhere. The deleted article was the place to hold both sides it wasnt balanced but had swung in both directions and an equilibrium would have been found given time. Now I predict the astrology and science section of the main Astrology article will grow to take on this role until we find a way for all sides to say their piece. Lumos3 21:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I voted to keep, but I'm not sorry to see it go, it was pretty much a nightmare from either viewpoint. I don't think it was a great loss to Wikipedia or anyone else to delete, now let's move on. Doovinator 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted material

The deletion has removed all material in the article which and this is no longer available for reuse. It contained many citations and references that had been built up over 14 months and are a useful resource in trying to write a balanced view on Astrology and science. This is petty and not in the best interest of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. They need to be made available somehow, perhaps in someone’s User area. Lumos3 09:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Marskell's warning, I do have the material, and could post it on my user space. Isn't it against policy though to post this anywhere on WP? Aquirata 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there may be rules against reposting deleted material designed to stop reinsertion of libel. You could post to http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Main_Page and cite Wikipedia as the source then post a link back here. Wikinfo has a policy of encouraging forks and sympathetic points of view. Lumos3 08:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have posted it at http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Objective_validity_of_astrology. Aquirata 12:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Clear consensus

OK, the leading part of the second sentence under 'Astrology and science' ("there is a clear consensus within the contemporary scientific community that there is no verified scientific basis for astrological claims") still needs sourcing in my opinion. I haven't seen anything in the references supporting the statement. For example, on beliefnet.com:

"When it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe, astrology became impossible," said Hawking, delivering a lecture through voice synthesizer to a standing-room-only crowd of thousands.

What kind of bullsh*t is this? I have been a big fan of Hawking, by the way, ever since his Brief History of Time, but he goes ballistic here. It appears he knows nothing about astrology at all.

"The reason most scientists don't believe in astrology is because it is not consistent with our theories that have been tested by experiment," Hawking said to a rapt and quiet crowd..."

Here he makes an unsourced statement, and it's about the supposed belief of scientists, not a statement of fact or evidence.

The rest of the references are similarly unsupportive of the claim in the article. Could someone please point me to the relevant parts of these references in case I missed something? Aquirata 18:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

For the passage that you described, would "...there is a belief within the contemporary scientific community..." be acceptable? --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the word belief is probably much closer to the truth and would be easier to source. Since it is impossible to disprove astrology per se in practical terms, and the vast majority of the scientists couldn't be bothered with looking into astrology anyway because they have an a priori opinion about it being a 'pseudoscience', the most appropriate term is belief. Aquirata 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So we should agree to change this to a neutral statement like, "there is a clear consensus of belief within the contemporary scientific community that there is no verified scientific basis for astrological claims". Clarifying that this is a belief would leave it open for "both sides of the arguments to be presented", as administrator Death mentions regarding the removal of the "fork". Piper Almanac 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer this wording: "While contemporary scientists commonly believe that there is no scientific basis for astrological claims,..." How do you like that? Aquirata 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The sentence goes on to state that "astrologers and a significant portion of the population continues to believe in astrology". Well, you can leave off "astrologers" because of course they believe, but then this makes the article seem to be between scientists and the public, which is not accurate. This is about scientific belief versus putative findings that go contrary to that belief. How about, "Although contemporary scientists commonly believe that there is no scientific basis for astrological claims, astrologers believe that there is evidence to the contrary." Piper Almanac 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be "astrologers believe that there is evidence that supports astrology." Piper Almanac 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Piper. How is this:

• "Although contemporary scientists commonly believe that there exists no scientific basis for astrological claims, it is the general belief of the astrological community that certain aspects of astrology are supported by scientific evidence."

Aquirata 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Floats my boat. Doovinator 02:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good. Any further clarifications or suggestions from anyone? Piper Almanac 03:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is NOT meant to presnt "some sort of intermediate view among the different views (as) the correct one" which is what this sentence is attempting to do with a "yes, but" structure. We should state what the scientific consensus clearly and not caveat the comment immediately. I think one way to help this is to divide scientific bodies from individual scientists. I can also live with dividing physical sciences from behavioural disciplines as suggested earlier. Marskell 09:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your POINT accusation below, please point me to one sentence in one reference that supports the 'clear consensus' statement. I have requested this many times before. For now I have reinstated the 'fact' tag, but later (failing to provide a suitable source) the sentence will be changed to read 'belief' as suggested by several editors now.

The sympathetic view must be given preference as you know, so I have moved the paragraph accordingly. The section looks fairly balanced with the exception of the lack of citing tests where no correlation was found. A few sentences to that effect should be added. Aquirata 10:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To take the rewording effort further, I can live with "commonly held belief" but not with "clear consensus belief". Two other editors seem to agree with this. So unless someone can prove (source) that 90% of scientists believe astrology lacks a scientific basis, the 'clear consensus' expression will have to go. Aquirata 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is to change this sentence:

• "There is a clear consensus belief within the contemporary scientific community that astrology lacks a scientific basis and the discipline is generally labelled a pseudoscience."

to these two:

• "Contemporary scientists commonly believe that there exists no scientific basis for astrological claims. Astrology, therefore, is generally labelled a 'pseudoscience' by the scientific community."

Opinions, please. Aquirata 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree to the change. There is a clear consensus within the scientific community, and it wouldn't be correct if you don't mention it. siddharth 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. This changes an accurate statement into one which connotes that the scientists are wrong, and that astrology is unfairly "labelled". It also misrepresents the consensus as only being a "common belief". --Philosophus ^T 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The main WP problem with the 'clear consensus' statement is that it cannot be sourced. Aquirata 12:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The National Science Foundation is a good source for 'clear consensus' siddharth 13:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Moved article to Category:Protoscience from Category:Pseudoscience. Justification:

• Protoscience article: "Protoscience is a word with two meanings. It may mean an unscientific field of study which later becomes a science (e.g. astrology becoming astronomy and alchemy becoming chemistry). Or, it may mean a field of study which appears to conform to the scientific method but is either not falsifiable, or if it is, its predictions and principles have not yet been accepted as science or verified by a consensus of scientists." This is a clear fit.
• Pseudoscience article: "Pseudoscience is a term applied to a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by sufficient scientific research." This is a clear unfit: Astrology is not typically portrayed as scientific; however, where scientific claims are made, they are supported by scientific research utilizing the scientific method (e.g., Mars effect).

Thoughts? Aquirata 04:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Very much agreed. Pseudoscience implies a large measure of con job; though some practicioners may be on the level, they're basically indistinguishable from those who aren't. Astrology has always attracted its fair share of loonies (let's be real!), but is nevertheless a valid field of study with its own rigorous procedures and methods. Someone who is pushing a con can be discovered in a matter of seconds by an experienced astrologer (as I've sometimes had to do, unfortunately); the same can't be said for a tea leaf reader, etc. who may be legitimate, but follows no set method, and thus can't be challenged for lack of proficiency. Doovinator 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as astrology in part "became" astronomy it was a protoscience. But it certainly isn't one now because it does "appear to conform to the scientific method". And please cease the silly POINT on asking for a cite on scientific consensus. We have everything from the Australian Broadcasting Corp to Stephen Hawking. Marskell 07:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology didn't cease to be a protoscience just because one field of science was born of it. It may continue to give birth to other fields in the future as it evolves. It may become a field of science in its own right. Or do you have proof or foresight to the contrary? Aquirata 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody removed the article from 'Protoscience' and put it in 'Superstitions', which is clearly incorrect ("This category is about articles that depict a superstition, an irrational belief or a set of behaviors that are related to magical thinking, whereby the practitioner believes that the future, or the outcome of certain events can be influenced by certain specified behaviors"). I have removed the article form the 'Superstitions' cat.

Any strong feelings whether astrology is 'protoscience'? Aquirata 19:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Protoscience. I think Mike Harding has stated it well. Nature does not follow scientific laws; science describes nature. Theory does not support observation, but observation supports theory. Astrology is not based on theory ( or scientific "causality") but on observation without theory. It is a protoscience. Piper Almanac 02:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you claim that there isn't any attempt to portray the subject as scientific, but then give dozens of scientific "proofs" of astrology? You are also ignoring the first defintiion to come out of define:pseudoscience- Scientifically testable ideas that are taken on faith, even if tested and shown to be false.. Jefffire 11:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is listed as an example of protoscience. Astrology is not being portrayed as scientific, and tests of it adhere to the scientific method; some of its claims are also supported by scientific research. Which means it cannot be considered pseudoscience. That some people label it as such is a fact, but that has no bearing on classification in WP. On the other hand, astrology is "a field of study which appears to conform to the scientific method but is either not falsifiable, or if it is, its predictions and principles have not yet been accepted as science or verified by a consensus of scientists." This is a very apt description of the current state of astrology, so I'd say astrology perfectly fits the protoscience category. Aquirata 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware you are using two mutually exclusive arguements, both of which are wrong? Perhaps you have overlooked the half dozen of so references that there are no scientifically accepted evidences of astrology. Jefffire 12:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis here amounts to an OR interpretation of what it should be called. If we have a number of sources calling it a pseudoscience than the category is accurate. Marskell 15:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CG states:

• "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."
• "If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed."

And because:

• The term 'pseudoscience' is not NPOV,
• It is neither self-evident nor uncontroversial that astrology is pseudoscience, and
• Some people dispute the scientific nature of astrology,

the category 'pseudoscience' is entirely inapprorpiate (it violates WP:CG). Therefore, the article has been removed from that category and put in category 'protoscience' as per the above discussion. If you have a problem with that, please cite relevant policies or guidelines. It is immaterial what you, skeptics, pseudoskeptics or debunkers think of astrology, what matters is how WP works. Aquirata 07:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CG is a guideline not a policy. Your interpretation of why it's protoscience is your interpretation—that is, a bit of OR. I have removed the extra cat completely for the time being. Marskell 08:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly fit into category pseudoscience under the current definitions. To remove it makes it harder for people interested in pseudoscience to negotiate Wikipedia. If you believe the category is POV then bring it up on WP:NPOV. Jefffire 11:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And your interpretation is OR according to Marskell. According to WP:CG, when categorization is controversial, it shouldn't be done. I have removed your addition violating this guideline. Aquirata 12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OR? It's supported by references from some of the most prominant scientists and organisations. Just because you personally disagree doesn't make it controversial. You just don't match up to Proffessor Hawkings, don't be arrogant. Jefffire 12:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Humanist article

I think this piece referencing the 1975 Humanist article (which has been removed by Doov) does have a place in the article, but perhaps not in the 'Astrology and science' section. The letter presents and references no scientific evidence but is an important piece of modern history. A paragraph under 'History' could be written about the relationship between astrology and the establishment through the centuries, which could be finished off by the Humanist article as a modern example. Aquirata 07:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the response to the article by one of the leading skeptics of the time, Carl Sagan, which gives a better perspective to the theme of the article. Piper Almanac 02:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sagan's comments weren't about the validity of the field, just that he thought it was "authoritarian". It doesn't relate to the article, so I've removed it as irrelevent. Jefffire 11:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sagan's letter was in direct response to the article, which was highly controversial. (He did not want to give his silent consent to the "consensus," which in this case could easily have implicated him). He criticized the article for authoritatively characterizing astrology as superstition and for authoritatively assuming that a mechanism ("scientific basis") is necessary for validity (although he himself did not "feel" that astrology is valid). By describing the origins of chemistry, medicine, and astronomy and Wegener's proposal, he seems to suggest that astrology is a protoscience. Piper Almanac 17:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

National Science Foundation

Is it's description of astrology as a pseudoscience a good enough source for you? Marskell 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is good enough for stating that the NSF labels astrology as pseudoscience, yes. Aquirata 11:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the "scientific community" is not an organization as such, presenting summative commentary concerning it must rely on umbrella organizations (just as you've been doing for astrologers such as with the Year Zero cite). When able to cite God I'll let you know; in the meantime the NSF is more than sufficient as a source for the claim. Marskell 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Year Zero is a book containing numerous interviews with practicing astrologers. It is a cross-section of the astrological community therefore representing the community's views. If there is no such thing for scientists then you cannot make a sweeping claim about them. Aquirata 12:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you followed the link: "The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent United States government agency that supports fundamental research and education in all the non-medical fields of science and engineering. With an annual budget of about $5.6 billion (fiscal year 2006), NSF funds approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities." It's at least as summative for a general scientific claim as Year Zero is for astrology. It also has the advantage of not being a dubious source. Marskell 12:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. How is such an organization representative of the views or beliefs of the scientific community? Because they support scientists? Aquirata 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't play stupid Aquirata. It's a government org, it's staffed by scientists, it supports research across the sciences, it supports science education from kindergarten children through post-docs. Marskell 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Playing stupid would be beyond my skills. You don't seem to understand that sourcing a representative opinion is different from sourcing the same statement from a number of parties. Representative opinion may take the form of organizations representing people's views or beliefs, opinion polls or cross-section interviews. Just because your government makes a political statement, it doesn't follow that this statement is representative of the opinions of the people. An opinion poll would represent a true picture. Same goes for the scientists. How do you know what their beliefs are? Did you talk to every one of them? Did you read an opinion poll somewhere? Did somebody interview a representative cross-section of them? You don't seem to realize how grave an error you are making by assuming scientists' views and beliefs. The Humanist article is certainly not representative of scientists. It was a political attack filled with authoritarian and pseudoscientific arguments. Does the NSF claim to represent the views and beliefs of scientists? If not, end of story. If so, how are they doing that? Aquirata 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good God Aquirata. By your logic we couldn't use the American Medical Association to cite a medical claim. We have to accept Year Zero because (in your opinion) it represents a cross-section of astrologers' viewpoints—this despite the fact that on the vast majority of Wiki articles it would be considered dubious and not allowed—but the largest cross-discipline scientific organization in the U.S. is out. This is ridiculous. Can you present to me a scientific body that does consider astrology a science? Marskell 14:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous, it is WP:V. You must not present truth but verifiable statements. Aquirata 14:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable statements indeed. I have verified it with reference to: a university-linked dictionary, the largest U.S. government science umbrella organization, the largest general astronomy organization in the world, two very prominent scientists, and a host of lesser names. No I haven't talked to every scientist in the world any more than you've talked to every supposed astrologer—no where in policy does it say we have to.

And it's not as if we're dealing with a contested claim. As I said once before, if the Astronomical Society of the Pacific said "pseudoscience" and the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic said "legitimate science" we would have a different issue and need to attribute things line-by-line. But that isn't the case: every non-dubious scientific link says the discipline is non-scientific with some wording or other. Of course, that doesn't mean that every scientific organization in general will see fit to publish a statement on astrology—I can still live with "the scientific community, where it has commented..." Marskell 15:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see 'Clear consensus' above. Aquirata 15:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See what? The fact the Stephen Hawking got your shorts in a knot? Marskell 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Three editors seem to think that the 'clear consensus' expression cannot be supported and should be rephrased to 'commonly'. It would be better to continue discussing actual wording than arguing about theoretical aspects of WP policies. Aquirata 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And I think it can and has been supported. So square one. Marskell 16:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Marsekell is clearly right on this. Force of editor numbers does not overrule Wikipedia policies. Jefffire 11:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sympathetic tone

And I don't have a clue where you've come up with "sympathetic commentary first". The relevant sections of NPOV are undue weight, pseudoscience, and giving "equal validity." All underscore that due weight belongs with the scientific majority. Marskell 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fairness and sympathy does not support your argument about sequencing. And you seem to be ignoring the caveat: "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views." Marskell 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I quote:

• Wp:npov#Fairness_and_sympathetic_tone: "We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."
• meta:Positive_tone:

• "refuting everything as one goes makes things look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section"
• "We should instead start with the attitude that such and such is a good idea, except that the supporters of said view overlooked such and such a detail."
• "An article describing slavery as a sick degradation of human life and listing some of the worst instances would be deserved but not particularly informative anyways. Instead one could begin by saying slavery was predominant throughout the ancient world and picked up again in early modern times, that the conditions under which slaves lived and worked varied but were generally dismal, and that for such reasons slavery is now considered a violation of human rights and has widely and thankfully been abolished."

Hope you can see now where the idea comes from. Aquirata 12:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Astrology is a minority view amongst the population at large and (more importantly) an extreme minority view amongst experts that we might cite on Wikipedia (perhaps you can find a Nobel winner to match the 18 that signed the Humanist piece). In letter and spirit NPOV makes clear that we do not have to give support for things like astrology equal weight alongside science. Sympathy is subject to the caveat I have bolded above. Marskell 12:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is perhaps the single dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone who purports to be a scientist ever say. Majority opinion is what gave us the flat earth theory. Does it need equal weight? Doovinator 00:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Minority vs majority only applies to undue weight. I am talking about something else. You cannot criticise something first and then write about it later. The slavery example is directly applicable, how can you not see that? Aquirata 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First, to be clear about one thing: a discussion on Meta is just that--a discussion on Meta.

Also undue weight absolutely applies here--it applies to everything we discuss basically ("including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements"). Insofar as we are debating prominence of placement we are debating undue weight. And we are not "criticis(ing) something first and then writ(ing) about it later." There are five sections describing astrology in detail above the section! The section is called "Astrology and science". And we should begin by "represent(ing) the majority (scientific) view as the majority view." Marskell 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This particular meta discussion is referenced within WP:NPOV. The wording within the policy is similar to that of the meta discussion, so the discussion was probably the source of that section of the policy.

Undue weight applies everywhere, of course. I am not debating undue weight. The order of paragraphs has no bearing on weight. If anything, the last word carries more weight than the first in an argument. Nowhere does NPOV say that we should begin with the majority view. However, you cannot start a section with criticism. This is not only common sense, but also follows from the text quoted above.

Undue weight should be dealt with separately by adding more arguments on the science side. I have already suggested that above. Aquirata 14:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The last word has greater effect? Well, astrology gets the last and the first at the moment so go figure. Marskell 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with part of what Marskell has been saying. Let me explain. There are outspoken critics who proclaim astrology to be pseudoscience. These critics have strong beliefs and publish their opionins in the most authoritative places they can reach. Politicians and lobbists do much the same thing. I think Aquirata is correct that the vast majority of scientists have remained silent on the issue. But here is where Marskell is correct. If silence is consent, then due to the silence, there is a de facto "consensus" that astrology is pseudoscience. I would not by any means characterize this belief as being "clear" as it is now worded. That qualification would require what Aquirata has asked for, a poll or cross-section to prod those who are silent for an opionion.

I believe that Michael Harding speaks for many postmodern astrologers when he states that empirical observations do not need to support any theory at all. Astrologers say they observe. Observation is the basis for science theory, and observation either confirms/supports or falsifies/denies science theory, not the other way around. Claims of knowledge based on observation and lack of science theory makes astrology a protoscience within the Wikipedia definition. Aquirata is right. This is the correct (astrological) way to represent astrology as contrasted to the pseudoscience (skeptic) view. Both of these POVs should be represented. Piper Almanac 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that keeping silent equals consensus. Consensus is common opinion reached through negotiation. There is none of that within the scientific community. 'No scientific basis' and 'pseudoscience' may be commonly held beliefs by scientists, but nothing more than that.

Ahem,

In the world of science, silence is consent. Piper Almanac 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange... Jefffire 11:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the pseudoscientific (skeptic) view can be represented as long as it can be sourced properly. Aquirata 10:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh... Must be a global conspiracy then, supported by the Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Looks like it's The Truth(TM), vs. Wikipedia guidelines. Jefffire 11:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think rather than "silence" a better term would be "absence of disputation". As said thrice now, obviously not every scientist/scientific body is going to issue a statement on astrology, but when those that have all say essentially the same thing the summation is accurate. Marskell 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So then your "where commented" phrase should be inserted. The advantage of this is that such wording could be supported by a couple of references, whereas the current sweeping statement cannot. Aquirata 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've included more of Carl Sagan's letter to the Humanist in the article. It pointedly demonstrates that Sagan did not want to be implicated in the highly controversial article. It was a shock for most people that highly regarded scientists would endorse a manifesto in a highly opinionated non-scientific journal. Sagan did this to make it clear he did not give silent consent to the apparent "consensus" of opinion. Because of his level-headed response, his letter became almost as famous as the article in question. Although Sagan was a skeptic and "felt" that astrology is not valid, he added comments in his letter that were clearly sympathetic to the idea of astrology as a protoscience, and this is a good source for acceptance among scientists for this idea. Piper Almanac 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your paraphrase does not appear match what Sagan said in the referenced quote. Sagan said that he disagreed with the authoritarian tone of the article, not with it's conclusion. I direct your attention to 'The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Darkness' for Sagan's opinion on astrology. I don't believe that having scare quotes around 'felt' are an accurate description of Sagan's beliefs. MilesVorkosigan 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As the statement, in Sagan's view, is authoritarian, it is an opinion. This makes its conclusion an opinion grounded in authoritarianism. Sagan did not endorse the article, and its concluding opinion. Piper Almanac 03:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your posting the entire letter throws off due weight; it's not sensible to post a full response when you're not even posting the statement in question. It should be reduced to a single sentence. Marskell 08:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the Humanist reference, while it may be of historical interest because of its extreme sentiments, is not representative. There are additional references that could be included from BBC interviews of some of the scientists who signed Bok's article, who confessed they knew practically nothing about astrology. The Humanist reference should either be removed or put into historical perspective. A lot has happened since 1975. Piper Almanac 12:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not unless astrology has suddenly become scientifically valid without the vast majority of the scientific community noticing it hasn't. Astrology remains devoid of accepted scientific evidence and is still considered a pseudoscience by the vast majority of the scientific community. Jefffire 12:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Humanist article was written in 1975, an interesting period historically in science. At this time there were many scientists who strongly believed that the absolute definitions of natural phenomena and the linear progression of science was being threatened. The scientists who attacked astrology in this article, by their own later admissions, confessed they knew practically nothing about astrology. The attack was based largely on ignorance. In the early and mid-1970s, some philosophers and other thinkers had begun to think of science as "interpretive" and "constructed," and challenged the old views.

Thomas Kuhn's views, published at this tme, were highly influential. He saw science as a series of "paradigms" where newer scientific ideas replaced older ones. Kuhn also introduced the idea of "protoscience" during this period. The postmodern era, mainly during the 1990s (Uranus conj. Neptune), threw great doubt on the strict discrimination of many things, including many ideas in science. For example, boundaries between science and religion began to disolve, particularly in the mystical sense. Many things previously considered to be certainties were questioned and reconsidered.

As part of these changes, serious researchers began to reconsider astrology. They read Gauquelin. They took the time to actually learn astrology and design astrologically sound tests. There are positive results of astrolgical tests, but because of resistence on the part of some scientists clinging to the old highly-regimented beliefs, these results have not yet entered the scientific establishment. The 1975 Humanist article is an important landmark, but it should be contrasted with the dissolution of barriers and new, more inclusive definitions that have developed since then. It does not represent the "vast majority" today in any sense. Piper Almanac 15:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I'm afraid this revolution hasn't happened yet, nor does it look likely to. If you can find a reference of a large group of respected astronomers saying what you are, then we have something to work with. But on other similar pages I have worked on, such as creationists or cold fusion researchers, there was almost identical claims that we were on the brink of a revolution and that the ideas were being held back by an old gaurd of bigoted scientists who just happened to the editorial team for every major science journal. If this revolution is coming, can I suggest that we wait for it rather than trying to pre-empt it in Wikipedia. Jefffire 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, meta:Positive tone is a suggested extension to NPOV that is not. There does not appear to be any discussion about it, it is not a guideline or even an essay on en itself, and there are people who strongly disagree with it. The people who proposed it thought about only a limited set of cases, like politics and abortion, where opinions are everything and facts don't matter much. Following that proposal, how would you make Time Cube not be a complete embarrassment to Wikipedia? As for your comments on the state of science, I can't understand how you can support your claims. Every single astronomer and physicist at my university would disagree with you. For one thing, Science is more threatened now than it was in the 70s, with an upsurge in pseudoscience, helped by the Internet, and unscientific thinking in government. --Philosophus ^T 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of 3rr

The report can be found at [1]. User has been notified on his Talk page. Aquirata 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I kindly ask that you address my points rather than resorting to ad hominem. Despite my opinion that this is a false charge, I have reverted my last edit. I ask that you address the concerns on the talk page rationally, rather that making personal attecks like this. Jefffire 13:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What's an atteck? Did you mean attic? Doovinator 00:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You suppose it's funny to make fun of people because of a disability? Jefffire 11:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your disability is your inability to answer a direct question. Once again, yes or no? Doovinator 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's dyslexia. Let's go and make fun of people in wheelchairs for not being able to walk while we're at this. Jefffire 15:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What in God's name are you doing without spell check then? That's not your disability, that's your laziness. Doovinator 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You have no knowledge of astrology and have difficulty writing, editing and using the keyboard. You are also a Wikipedia editor heavily involved in editing the Astrology article. Is this correct? Aquirata 15:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have difficulty spelling, not anything else. I am also an expert on pseudoscience. Rather than making fun of my disabilities (which is considered exceptionally rude) and trying to attack my knowledge base (which is better suited than yours to evaluate scientific matter, which is what I have stuck to) you would be better suited to discussing the state of the article. Jefffire 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make fun of your disabilities and didn't attack your knowledge base. I am simply stating facts in a neutral manner, and corresponding with the source to make sure that I have my facts straight. Let me rephrase then: You are an expert on pseudoscience, have no knowledge of astrology, and have difficulty spelling. You are also a Wikipedia editor, heavily involved in editing the Astrology article. Is this correct? Aquirata

I am an expert on pseudoscience and science, and it is that section which I have stuck to in this article. I also know a considerable amount about astrology although not at expert level so I don't make edits to the history section, or to the sections on beliefs. I only make edits relating to science, about which I am highly qualified to write about. I also have occasional difficulties in spelling. Does this answer your questions? Jefffire 16:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, for now. I may want to know more about your astrological knowledge later, but that can wait. Aquirata 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you following this, the result was -no block-, and my self revert was unneccasery. I shall leave it in place as a peace making move, and hope that Aquirata sees reason. I would also note that article talk pages are not the place to discuss this kind of thing. Jefffire 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the 18-year old editor (promoted to admin the day before the 3RR charge) simply made a mistake. Aquirata 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I took a look at the diffs, and the admin made the right call. Jefffire did not revert to the same version four times in one day. The first diff was removing some text. The next three diffs were to place (or replace) Category:Pseudoscience in the article. So it looks like Jefffire made three reverts in a day, but did not make the potentially-blockable fourth revert. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See my comment on Aquirata's talk page. I would also note that both editors are violating the spirit of the rule, which is to leave the article alone while in a heated discussion and instead concentrate on a compromise. Sam Vimes 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And in addition, blocking for violating 3RR is not done to punish the violator, but to prevent the violator from making more reverts. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, they are meant to be preventative. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that the article talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss this, but whilst it is going on I would like to make note that user:Aquirata accussed me of vandalism in the report. I have never vandalised any page, anywhere, ever. Jefffire 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand DP's interpretation. The first edit by Jefffire was a reversion of an edit made by User:Piper Almanac, not just "removing some text". The next three were admittedly reverts. That makes four in a day.

And if blocking is not meant as a punishment, then why a self-reversion after having been reported for 3RR violation makes a difference? Isn't a break still called for especially if the violator is continuing to revert, albeit less than 4 times a day? Aquirata 18:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding WP:VAND, isn't editing other people's notes on Talk pages considered vandalism? If so, then please take a look at the history of this section. Aquirata 18:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to my condensation of Doovinater's message on this page which broke apart Lunse's? No-one would catagorise as vandalism, and no-one complainged (although Doovinater felt that my language was slightly harsh). In any case, I have never vandalised, so I ask that these baseless accussations cease and this bickering stop (see below). Jefffire 18:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I said "this section". Aquirata 18:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the title to something less provacative and utterly inappropriate than "Jefffire violates the 3rr (again)" or whatever it was. No admin would regard that as vandalism, and no-one has contested it. Jefffire 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Changing people's comments" is one type of vandalism. My heading was a statement of fact: you have violated 3RR before by your own admission. This case is also a clear violation as interpreted by one admin so far. Aquirata 18:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the change in title didn't change the meaning, and it doesn't fall under the category of "comments". Section headers need to be neutral and unprovacative so as to be effect, so I changed it as a good faith edit. If you regarded the change as vandalism, why the devil did you say nothing about it until now? I did once before unintentionally violate the 3rr due to an honest mistake on it's wording, however, you violated it in full knowlegde of the wording. Further more, I think this whole conversation come under the title of "bickering", so unless a different editor asks for a response, I will cease my input into this section. Jefffire 19:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my interpretation, yes, the first was a reversion, but the next three were different reversions. That's how I saw it. Anyways, his reversions are pretty far in the past, and a preventative 3RR block is not necessary at this time. I don't understand your question with regards to the block not being punishment, but it doesn't matter. A point of principle on Wikipedia is that blocks are not meant to be as punishment. Period. Any questions you have about inconsistencies in optics about blocks as punishment vs. prevention are because Wikipedia is large, and admins have different ideas about blocking policy. My interpretation might not even be correct. But in any case, I think any more comments I provide in this area will largely be useless, so I'll just take Astrology off my watchlist now and wish you all the best. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your input. Aquirata 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck, and keep up the good work, all of you. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bickering

All of this petty bickering is really counterproductive guys. Could both sides give it a rest already? --Chris Brennan 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you guys cannot agree on a version and insist on continuing this dispute, please take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and maybe go through some of those steps (like RfC or RfM). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some experience in dispute resolution. When the objectives and motivations of the sides are so diverse, no wishful thinking, mediation or arbitration will provide long-term remedy to the situation. The only real solution is to 'talk things out', as gently under the circumstances as possible, which is what we've been doing for some time now. Things have definitely improved, but there is still a long way to go. Aquirata 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Per request at WP:RFPP. Deathphoenix's comments are spot on. Hopefully consensus can be reached soon. -- Samir धर्म 06:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The timing of this is unfortunate as it froze a number of POV changes by Siddharth not discussed here prior to making the changes. Now we have to contend with those on top of the usual disagreements. Aquirata 07:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they are POV, and I think they are constructive to the article. Can you please tell me which parts you think are POV? I did reference most of my additions. Also, it's my personal opinion, that some discussions here degrade rapidly into bickering and that's why I applied my interpretation of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, and made the edits. Still, I apologize and I will discuss any future edits I make. siddharth 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding BOLD and IAR, jumping in with many changes without discussion when there is an ongoing effort to come to a reasonable wording acceptable to all shows lack of respect for other editors. This is one of the sore points of editing this article. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Aquirata 10:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is something which most editors here are guilty of then, including you. Jefffire 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide examples of this behaviour when making references to it. Otherwise, it is just a baseless accusation. Aquirata 11:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Since this article was protected recently due to edit warring, please add what you think are the current sore points, or a possible template of how you think the article should be, or any comments or suggestions below

• I think the protected version of the article is fine. siddharth 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Resonably fine, I feel. There might be an arguement for a line of Mr. Sagan's criticism of the statement, though I personally feel it is irrelevent. Categorisation is all completely referenced (even protoscience, though I personally disagree), so other than the external link problem I highlight below I have no major deletion plans. Jefffire 08:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Siddharth introduced a number of unwarranted changes:

• "Also, critics contend that since the time the current practice of astrology was founded, the motion of the planets have changed due to precession, which is a change in orientation of the Earths axis. As a result of this, the sun-signs assigned to individuals based on their birth date do not reflect the actual constellation the sun is found in.": This is not only OR but also a complete misunderstanding of astrology. Please see tropical zodiac and sidereal zodiac in order to gain a basic knowledge of zodiacs.
• "Another major criticism of astrology is that two different practitioners often make completely different predictions[44].": OR supported by unreliable source.
• "The scientific theory says that the results of a prediction should not depend on individual bias or opinion, whereas astrological predictions often depend on the practitioner.": OR and a lack of appreciation for the differences between hard and soft sciences.
• "When testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, studies of astrological "time twins", born minutes apart and presumably have the exact same planets in the same signs at the time of their birth, found no support for astrological predictions on similar personality or similarly timed events.[43][44][45]": A very bad reword, grammatically and factually incorrect.
• Deletion of Sagan quote: If the Humanist article is referenced within this section, then criticism of it must be presented as well.
• Replacement of specific theories by supposed mechanisms: Again a very bad reword attempting to dilute the sentence.
• Replacing "Many astrologers" with "One set of astrologers": Bad reword and factually incorrect (read the book).
• Addition of "despite the lack of experimental evidence": Factually incorrect (see Mars effect).
• Adding "gravity" as one proposed mechanism: This is not a notable reference, it just doesn't measure up to the other theories which were deleted.

In summary, all of these POV, OR, badly worded and factually incorrect changes should be reverted. Aquirata 11:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a pointwise response

• Agreed. After reading those links and more, I agree that this criticism should be removed.
• This is not OR. Do you want me to give references for examples? What makes this an unreliable source, but the other astrological sources you use reliable?
• It's not OR. It's a fact. The scientific thoery says that the result of an experiment or prediction should be same, no matter who performs it, and shouldn't have individual bias. Do you want me to reword that sentence and include references?
• It may be grammatically wrong, but it's factually correct. May I know what are the factual mistakes?
• I think that the Sagan quote, about authoritarianism, is irrelevant to the validity of the statement. In the same context, would it be OK to include Hawkings views on astrology?
• How does it dilute the sentence? I think it says the same thing!
• Read the link I gave for a counter-example. There are many astrolgers(see link) who do believe in causal theories. So, only one set of astrolgers beleive in acausal theories. Should I include more references, or reword that sentence?
• "despite the lack of experimental evidence" for causal theories, such as the proposed effect due to gravity. Should I reword that?
• Why is it not a notable reference? Some astrologers do believe in the effect of gravity, and it's a valid example. See the reference I gave. siddharth 11:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than going into a long-winded exchange on this now, I think we should first agree to revert to the version by BorgQueen 00:10, 23 June 2006. This version reflects consensus or close to it. Your changes are very controversial, so I'd say the starting point should be something that is mostly acceptable to all editors. Then you can propose your changes so we can discuss them one by one. How does that sound? Aquirata 12:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you think it's controversial, but let's wait for the views of more editors and see the consensus on this protected edition. If the consensus is to revert to the version by BorgQueen, that's fine by me. Since, this discussion seems to be in a deadlock, how about a request for comment on this article? siddharth 12:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no way a consensus could develop on this version. A consensus (or near to it) existed before your changes. Then you came and effected major revisions without discussion. This by definition upsets the consensus. The only starting point possible (i.e. reflecting consensus) is before your changes. Aquirata 12:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, lookng at the discussion on this talk page, there was certainly not consensus before Siddharth's changes, and there certainly isn't consensus for the version before the changes (or after the changes) now. --Philosophus ^T 12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's from someone who was not part of the discussions. Most contentious issues had been resolved by the time the admins arrived. The only remaining major issue as far as I know is the categorization of the article. A compromise solution has been proposed by Piper to include both categories.

Where do you see contention? Aquirata 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Philosophus is correct in saying that there was no consensus for the version before the change. While there were no major issues before my edit, I'll try stating a few of the minor issues.

• • The changing of "clear consensus"
  • Inclusion of non-scientific sources for astrological claims
  • removal of criticisms of the Mars Effect
  • the irrelevant Sagan comment on the humanist article
  • Failing to realise that astrology is a pseudoscience
  • Misinterpreating Sympathetic tone
  • Failing to realise the majority(scientific) view vs Minority view
  • The list of issues on which I made the edit.

siddharth 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sid, where were you when these issues were being discussed and worked through? Piper Almanac 13:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Piper, but while I see discussion, I don't see any resolution. Could you point out where they were resolved? siddharth 13:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Revert to the version by BorgQueen 00:10, 23 June 2006. Siddharth and Philosophus are newcomers to this discussion (carried over from the now deleted "Objective Validity of Astrology") while the other editors are familiar with the arguments, discussions, and consensus opinions that have already been made. Siddharth has tried to reintroduce old POVs that have not survived this process, and has not discussed them with the other editors before stepping in with extensive changes. In the current version, Siddharth has misrepresented astrologers' views on "causal mechanism" and used an unreliable source, and has incorrectly worded the "time twins" study, which did NOT test for astrologically timed events (as well as adding unnecessary secondary sources). I agree that the article should revert to the version by BorgQueen. Discussion can proceed cautiously from there. Piper Almanac 13:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to these objections previously. siddharth 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree on reverting to the BorgQueen version and start talking about contentious issues from that point on? Aquirata 09:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Wiki-info is not considered a suitable external link under the existing guidelines, namely guidelines two and three -

2 Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)

3 In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

This is a link to a Wikipedia article which was deleted. It does not become suitable as an external link when it is removed from Wikipedia, if anything it becomes worse. It will be removed as soon as the protection drops. Jefffire 08:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Where in WP:RS are you quoting from? Aquirata 10:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quoting from WP:External Links. Jefffire 10:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as WP:External Links. Please provide a proper reference. Aquirata 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links... Jefffire 10:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Regarding the two points mentioned:

1. Are you arguing that Wikinfo is an unreliable source?
2. Surely the OVA article provides much more detailed information than this article does. Or are you arguing for the inclusion of that material here?

I don't see support for the deletion of the link. Aquirata 11:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-info is most definitely not a reliable source. See here: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. The link does not belong. Marskell 13:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wiki, too, so (by your reasoning) an unreliable source. Aquirata 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the irony. I would only say: a) This particular wiki cannot speak for the content, processes etc. of other wikis. b) Wikipedia is an unreliable source (from the perspective of a university prof or a news organization, say). Anyhow, that's just my thoughts--the guideline says what it says. That actual language isn't used on V but I think if you went to talk there people would agree with RS. Marskell 14:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia, if I recall correctly, but I can't remember where that is. --Philosophus ^T 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a strong enough case to exclude Wikinfo from external links. Marskell's point a) is arguing for accepting Wikinfo, and point b) is irrelevant in terms of WP. Philosophus' statement is unsupported. My take on this is that it's ludicrous to deem WP as an unreliable source by WP because the entire project should then be scrapped. Aquirata 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My A and B were just my thoughts, as I said. The wording on RS is unequivocal that wikis are not reliable sources. Now, this is guideline level so you may want to go to talk on WP:V. Marskell 16:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and my point A isn't "arguing for accepting Wikinfo"--just the opposite. Marskell 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To take this further, Wikinfo is an online encyclopedia. It is not any less reliable then WP itself: "Wikinfo, formerly known as Internet-Encyclopedia (renamed in January 2004), is a fork of the English language Wikipedia initiated by Fred Bauder in July 2003." The expression 'fork' is explained as: "The term is also used more loosely to represent a similar branching of any work (for example, there are several forks of the English-language Wikipedia), particularly with free or open source software." So Wikinfo is considered a similar branching of Wikipedia. In other words, if WP articles are acceptable sources, then so are Wikinfo articles. Unless of course you can point me to an exact quote to the contrary. Aquirata 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

Wiki-info is NOT wikipedia, and even if it were, Wikipedia is not used as an external link, only an internal link. Jefffire 11:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, the mental torture on this talk page... Read the sentence posted to you twice. The language is absolutely clear. Neither Wikipedia nor Wikinfo are reliable sources; as far as the former goes, it's an irrelevant meta issue because Wikipedia articles do not link to each other as external sources. If you have further concerns bring it up here. Marskell 12:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So internal links can be unreliable but external ones cannot. Aquirata 09:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How to Get the Wiki-Astrology Page Back Online & Honest

One of the best ways to get the Astrology Page back to good use was mentioned by Chris Brennan, who wisely thought that a Wiki-project on Astrology would help. I agree with Chris. Astrology is most likely the oldest, and best documented science in the history of humankind, leading to the invention of mathematics, medicine, and many other disciplines taken for granted by conventional science. Moreover, the history of astrology is also well-documented, even in the United States, where it must be remembered that it is an historical fact that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. not only practiced astrology, but used its principles to set, and then build Washington D.C., aligning the capital with the fixed stars in the constellation Virgo. The expert astrologers, and those with the knowledge base have worked hard, and seriously to improve the page; however, the arguments that seek to "debase" astrology from a POV has disrupted the Wiki-Astrology page based on the failure to not accept historical facts while promoting a "pseudo-science" viewpoint designed to blot out over 5,000 years of historical and scientific fact. A balance, with facts, surely can proceed, and Chris Brennan's idea of a project would help to combine diversifed views into cohesive subject matter that seeks to enlighten the mind, rather than to darken it. Welcoming views that seek to expand the knowledge base, rather than to shrink it through personal POV, is the best course. Theo

And I wholeheartedly agree with that. Thanks for stating it so succinctly. Aquirata 16:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And I completely disagree with that. Your para is filled with some shocking errors, such as stating astrology is most likely the oldest, and best documented science in the history of humankind. After all that discussion, do you seriously agree with that Aquirata!? And do you really think that representing the majority(scientific) view as such is POV?siddharth 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Once you can embrace a not so narrow-minded definition of science that you are using now, you will also see the truth to Theo's quoted sentence. And the scientific point of view is a POV, yes. Please read WP:NPOV for an explanation. Aquirata 19:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The truth?? Amazing! I've lost faith, and think it's pointless working on this article. I'm out of here. siddharth 20:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, then - I guess it's pointless to answer your note below. Aquirata 20:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I always love the appeal to the ancients. Change the terms and you can use it to defend slavery. Marskell 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could, but that would indicate a complete disregard for the spiritual implications of astrology. Aquirata 19:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

used its principles to set, and then build Washington D.C., aligning the capital with the fixed stars in the constellation Virgo --> This is actually not true. The supposed "fact" was "discovered" by some enterprising conspiracists trying to claim that freemasonry was controlling the US Government and the proof was in the alignment of DC with Virgo. Unsubstantiated and idle speculation. --ScienceApologist 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ScienceApologist, but it is true. Suggest you check out Washington DC for yourself - the capital city of the USA contains the most publically set horoscopes of all the capitals of the world. Moreover, it is a known fact that the city itself was constructed and oriented (along with major monuments, including the White House) to the cluster of main stars in the constellation Virgo, which, by the way, can be seen with your own eyes at this time of year in Washington. Your statement, "by some enterprising conspiratists" according to you, must mean that you refer to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Bannacker, etc., as "conspiracists" because they used classical astrology for practical purposes? These are historical facts that cannot be denied ScienceApologist, and, no matter the POV, are well-known. Attempts to somehow "deny" the obvious is futile since these are historical and well-recorded facts. Your own "personal view" does not suffice to make it not so. For more, check out David Ovason's book - "The Secret Architection of our Nation's Capital" which should help you to see the facts of the matter.Theo

When did being demonstratably wrong ever stop an astrologer? Jefffire 11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer: When did it ever stop with human beings in general?Theo

Reaching consensus

Citing WP:BB as an excuse for adding the Pseudoscience project banner to the Talk page without prior discussion when this kind of labelling is one of the sore points that got the Astrology page into protected state is not only insulting to other editors and the consensus process but also a demonstration of bad taste and possibly even bad faith. What is the purpose of such an addition? Will this banner facilitate reaching consensus? Will making changes without talking while others are making an attempt to reach consensus help this process?

Philosophus, you are mocking our honest efforts, and are quite effectively adding oil to the fire.

The addition was repeated by anonymous 59.92.94.151 (who turned out to be Siddharth) twice, which is, in a way, excusable (although we don't know for sure whether there is a relation to the admittedly alternate account of Philosophus), and now Marskell, which is another slap in the face. How can you possibly maintain a cooperative attitude while militantly insisting on upsetting the process? This time I am once again reminded of the "mob of pro-Wikipedia zealots and hype-pushers... of no particular qualifications" [2].

I will revert the addition of this banner once more and wait for all of you to act in good faith (which means talking it out first before rushing back in without discussion). Aquirata 19:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata, there is a clear consensus that astrology is pseudoscience. I'm amazed that you don't see that, and persist in claiming consensus! By removing such additions, I believe it's you who are assuming bad faith and mocking honest efforts. Also, the anon ip was mine as I forgot to log on. siddharth 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, your interpretation of consensus seems like having the last word on a discussion siddharth 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page, not the article. Please don't remove the additions of others. I cited being bold because the template is brand new and had not been used yet. Part of the reason I put it here is to find out what the reaction would be - I have tried to make it clear in the text that the WikiProject watches over articles that might contain pseudoscience, or that might attract pseudoscientific edits. Thus we also watch over pages like Zero point energy, which is mostly scientific. Apparently I haven't done a good enough job at this - could you tell me what you find wrong with the text? Thanks, Philosophus ^T 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus:

• You haven't addressed my concerns regarding the consensus process.
• You have put back your banner with full knowledge of it being highly contentious.
• You now know what the reaction is. Please remove the banner until we can agree on putting it back in.
• The description of the project ("This WikiProject is intended as a tool for presenting pseudoscience articles in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View rules, and for aiding in flagging articles that aren't Encyclopedic for removal.") doesn't match your 'might' qualifier.
• The term pseudoscience is pejorative and is being used as a debasing label. If you had a project on protoscience, fringe science or alternative bodies of knowledge, nobody would object. If you want to look for trouble on the other hand, keep using the pejorative term. History will show you that you were wrong just like it has already shown similarly insensitive people using the terms nigger, faggot, etc.
• The Talk page is the back door to the article for now. Acceptance of your banner on the Talk page will result in it being put on the article page eventually.
• The WikiProject watches over articles: In other words, it is policing these articles you deem suspect. No thanks.
• In summary, I think dreaming up this project was an extremely bad idea in the first place. Attempting to police the Astrology article in a coordinated manner by people adverse to and lacking knowledge of the subject is even worse. Please remove your banner and stop trying to force your POV on this page.

Aquirata 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Again, the talk page is not the article. The banner will never be put in the article, since such banners are not put in articles.
• The WikiProject considers the article to be one of the articles that we work on, and the banner is just a statement of that fact. It is not a statement of support for any particular POV, besides the POV of supporting NPOV. In a way it is more there to encourage awareness of the project, just like the WikiProject Astrology banner. There are people here who would probably be interesting in contributing to each of the two projects.
• I've also asked for advice about this on IRC, but the only response I got were a few people telling me to delete *all* WikiProject banners *everywhere* in the article talk namespace, something which I certainly don't have time to do. --Philosophus ^T 00:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. However, I still don't see you addressing my concerns. Regarding the removal of the banner, if you had time for putting it in and re-adding it, you should certainly have time for removing it, too. Aquirata 00:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't understand my statement. The only response I got on IRC was the suggestion that I should remove every WikiProject banner of every WikiProject on talk pages of all articles in Wikipedia. I'm not a bot, and I don't think any human has time to do that. I apparently awoke sort of anti-banner sentiment, and you will probably see a proposal in a few days. --Philosophus ^T 00:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Damnit. --Chris Brennan 00:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus, I understood your statement. In that spirit, what's preventing you from removing this one banner form this page? Aquirata 01:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would he do that? Harald88 09:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous points of consensus among editors in the Science and Astrology discussion (including the Objective Validity of Astrology page before this one). If you participated and you've been on this rollercoaster, you understand the consensus, even though to the causual observer it may look like arguing all the way. This article is a mix of volitile beliefs and ideas, but at the BorgQueen checkpoint it was at one of these wonderous points that were as near to consensus as this stuff gets. It was a remarkable achievement. Arguing that there is a "clear consensus" among scientists that astrology is pseudoscience is no more meaningful than the "clear consensus" among astrologers and most scholars that astrology is not science in the modern sense. Please respect efforts of those who have worked hard on this topic and try to contribute to the goal of consensus without undue provocation. Piper Almanac 23:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Piper. Aquirata 09:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a talk page, for goodness sake, not an article. If a particular project has an interest in it then why remove the banner? Jefffire 11:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that arguing over things like this does have the feel of a faith argument. When I hear don't use "repugnant" sources, "insulting" banners etc. I'm left scratching my head a little because it seems to be personalizing a non-personal process—i.e., as if we're offending somebody's faith. Ultimately, that can't be the arbiter of what belongs. Philosophus has a project and he's added it to the page—that is his right. Whether project banners belong at all is a larger issue for the community to decide. Marskell 11:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Chris Brennan 17:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are stong beliefs on both sides. Up until this point there was a effort, made in relatively good faith, on the part of both sides to arrive at consensus. The work has been very difficult, but all have persisted. Knowledge has been exchanged, and the result was good. This pseudoscience banner however adds a strongly political slant that is not only unnecessary, but very harmful to this effort. It is a rally cry to attract would-be debunkers who, in their "non-personal" way, do not care to get involved in discussion or consensus. Indeed some are even insulted by the very thought of consensus. They see only a targeted group that has been labeled. Stereotyping and labeling is a highly charged political act. It breeds ignorance, contempt, irrationality, and isolation. It brings out the worst on both sides. Political labeling of any sort should not be condoned by scientists. Once this label was applied, the article was immediately butchered with unreliable sources and arguments that had already discussed and resolved long ago. Astrologers sensing the attack came out of the woodwork and jumped into the fray. All the editors need to agree that the goal is consensus, or this article is meaningless. Are there any dissenters to a goal of consensus? If not, then let's remove the label, at least the "WikiProject Pseudoscience" banner on this Talk page, and get on with the work. Piper Almanac 01:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Phil is busy with something else and cannot revert himself. It also seems there is strong opposition to the pseudoscience project banner. I have reinstated the state of the Talk page to the time of protection in order to facilitate reaching consensus. Aquirata 09:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it looks like a sysop made some minor changes to the article. Why? Aquirata 09:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community". Thus, why do you think they did? Harald88 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, When did you hear 'repugnant sources' in this debate? This is a false generalization. The pseudoscience banner is insulting to astrologers (which I am not), about one-third of Americans (in which group I also don't belong), and to the consensus process on this Talk page, to mention a few examples. It is not personally insulting. Please don't make assumptions about my personal feelings or faith. That could be taken as a personal attack. By your rationalizing and defending Phil's highly contentious action, I can start up a Pseudoreligion project and put that on every science Talk page. Or I can start up a Sh*theads project and put that on every personal Talk page. Or a Niggers project on black people's pages, or a Death to sects project on religious pages, etc. I fail to understand how you can condone such a position as it is also contradicting the spirit of WP:NPOV. Pseudoscience is not a neutral term and should not be used within WP apart from a historical or social perspective. It is not an appropriate name for categories or projects. Aquirata 09:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Piper used the adjective on the Objective validity page and it stuck in my mind. As for the rest of your rant I don't want to touch it except to say this: equating the use of pseudoscience here with the use of nigger is, um, repugnant. Marskell 10:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it what Aquirata meant at all Markskell. For one, there is no proof whatsoever that the science of Astro-LOGY is a pseudoscience since the term itself is used in this debate, but, has no meaning at all to true astrology. How would you explain the fact that Classical Astrology, from it, came mathematics (algebra, geometry, trigonometry) and many applied sciences, as well as medicine? In your use of the word "pseudoscience," the above practices, must, by definition, also be termed pseudosciences as well. Perhaps your argument against astrology comes from a "pop-culture astrology" mindset - which is common among those who have not studied astrology itself. For instance, equating Astrology with "Astronomy" as an equal is not correct. Astronomers were never allowed to say, read the signs of the skies if they only worked solely as stellar cartographers, which is what an "astronomer" is - a stellar cartographer. The techniques of identifying celestial objects, marking positions, motions, declinations, etc., in Astrology is "astronomy" or what is known as stallar cartography. All classical astrologers had to train in this branch of astrology along with all of the others, which included medicine, theology, politics (mundane) natal, meteorology, and the general branches within what was known as "Natural Astrology." Astrologers were the ones trained, and able to expertly "read" celestial data from the combined collection of celestial phemenoma and then to make a "judgement" on the matters questioned. Those who claim that it is not possible to forecast the future, then in the same breath state that it is possible to say, forecast the weather in advance - are contradicting themselves. This is forecasting into the future. Astrology, for instance, invented what is called "meteorology" - forecasting the weather using astronomical data. The term "astronomy" is technical, and the suffix "nomy" means "to name." The term "logy" applied to "astro" is well known and has been with us since the dawn of humankind. For instance, you will find ancient solar/lunar and planetary observatories and their texts/books etc., all over the Earth; with such physical monuments such as ratio-replicas of say, Stonehedge, built by many cultures to monitor, observe and record celestial data.Theo

"In your use of the word "pseudoscience," the above practices [math etc.], must, by definition, also be termed pseudosciences as well." Another non-sequitur to add to the pile. Because bloodletting is a load of rubbish so to is modern surgery? No. That astronomy arose from astrology tells me nothing about the latter's efficiacy. If all astrology amounted to were to "observe and record celestial data" no one would have a problem with it—it's just that niggling bit about relating those observations to completely unrelated things.

As for forcasting the future (more precisely, making forecasts about the future) who said it's impossible? Many are forecasting another Brazil win in the World Cup. I suspect if it occurs it will have much to do with the talents of the team and little to do with the position of Pluto.

As for the etymological argument, please save it. If affixes accorded credibility we should all convert to Scientology (with a name like that, how can it be wrong?). Marskell 14:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrophysics research

WMAP satellite discovered tropical ecliptic (ie. astrologers' Zodiac), see: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403353 with additional larger images at original announcement of obserwation results at: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496. So something originally discovered indirectly through observing effects of cosmic influences on human lifes is now independently rediscovered with scientific instruments. 83.24.194.139 14:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read these papers now, thanks for bringing them to our attention. While the CMB anomalies are minor (micro-Kelvin range), they nevertheless form an intriguing pattern along the tropical zodiac. Fourfold and sixfold divisions are apparent, but higher multiples are not showing up as obviously. These two, however, are sufficiently correlated to the tropical signs. This is an interesting line of research, one that will no doubt bring major changes in current scientific attitudes towards astrology. Aquirata 10:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Aquirata. Theo