Talk:Astrology: Difference between revisions

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:
6. Early June 2006:
7. Mid June 2006:
8. Early July 2006:

Astrology, Science and causality

I have my doubts regarding the reference from David Cochrane, [1]. Is that a published work, or only posted on an enthusiast's site?

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

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

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

The intent of the quote, quite obviously, is that if basic physical and astronomical theories lack a mechanism but are only empirically observed, then the same should also be allowed for astrology. Lack of mechanism is an invalid argument. Maybe there is a better way to reword this important statement. Piper Almanac 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of science is a mathematical formulation of observed behaviour. There is no traditional cause-and-effect in modern science, I thought you guys knew that. Aquirata 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

David, Your suggestion is very plausible. In fact, we used to have an article called Objective validity of astrology, but the militant faction (who like to call themselves skeptics but are in fact extreme materialist cynics) had it removed because they couldn't handle seeing so much evidence in favour of astrology. The official explanation was that the article was a POV fork. The article was suggested for deletion in the first place by our very own User:Marskell via a process called WP:AFD. On the AfD page, editors from all walks of life (i.e. the vast majority of them without any clue about astrology, let alone scientific research into it) had their say about the page. Roughly 70% voted for deletion, 30% for keeping, the main argument being the already mentioned POV fork (mostly without explanation or supporting arguments). Apparently, 75% or above in favour of deletion will result in automatic deletion, 67% or below in automatic keeping. The administrator responsible for taking care of the AfD simply took these opinions at face value and, without looking at the article or having an opinion on it, decided for deletion.

You will notice as you edit WP that the same political games are being played here as everywhere else in life. When short on rational arguments and sources supporting their view, cynics (some call them pseudoskeptics) will resort to any means whatsoever to achieve their end. They will typically try to pull the rug from underneath the people they perceive to be in their way. This generally takes the form of Request for Comments or Dispute Resolutions. Marskell has initiated an RfC on me a while ago (without any notable success), and he and User:Jefffire are again talking about DR to elevate their fight against big bad mystics (see below). They are also very good at quoting WP policies and putting their own interpretation on them in support of their objectives. Many administrators are also from this camp, so they have "official" backing in doing this. The existence of the Pseudoscience category, directly contradicting WP:NPOV, is ample evidence for the inherent bias of the WP community. A quick look at he Pseudoscience FAQ will make it obvious which side of the argument WP "consensus" is on.

The Objective validity of astrology article has disappeared without a trace from WP, but you can have a look here: [2]. I would certainly support the creation of a new article along the lines you suggest, but the cynics will no doubt vehemently oppose it. Aquirata 12:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Correlation to the personality tests

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

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

Please read the reference, where this is clearly stated. Aquirata 09:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You said "Science as it stands today cannot measure personality". That is clearly wrong. We can verify it with [3]

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

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

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

Dennis Elwell

The sentence According to Dennis Elwell, Dean's actual purpose in producing this book was "to undermine astrology’s fundamental tenets... behind the smoke screen of reviewing the literature.". What's the purpose of including this line? To me, it appears irelevant to the previous statements, and a baseless accusation. Also, there is no continuity from the two lines before this. And, if this is only a personal view by Dennis Elwell, why are we including it in the article? Unless other astrologers also make this accusation, I think it would qualify as an extreme minority view and shouldn't be included(as per WP:NPOV)Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 06:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the two sentences, which only amount to bickering. Aquirata 09:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I replaced it with a shorter version: "Dean himself has suggested that continued interest in astrology is based on intuition and gullibility, though his analyses have been criticized by astrologers as agenda-driven." If we're going to introduce him his basic viewpoint on the discipline needs to be clear. Marskell 09:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is good, although the placement of this sentence may not be the best. Aquirata 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Serious deterioration of page

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

Regarding the "silly caveat", please read WP's own article on causality:

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

The "unfair generalisation" can be multi-sourced, give me time.

Mars effect is undisputed, you (Vorpal blade) are citing papers three years earlier than the latest research published. Please be familiar with this complicated subject before making such changes.

I think that covers the major changes resulting in a serious deterioration in quality. Aquirata 08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think you are assuming bad faith, and we are clear with the complicated subject. Contrary to what you claim, the relationship of Mars effect to astrology is widely disputed (please do look at the mars effect article in wikipedia) and I linked a paper which even explains the origin of the bias, which you removed. The latest "research" doesn't address the "throw-away" bias in the previous research, or refute the findings of CFEPP study. I think you are applying your interpretation in these results, and that violates WP:ORVorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 10:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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

A more acceptable article to present the issue of causality might be [4]. Astrophysicist Victor Mansfield sums up the problem confronting science and what it means to astrology as follows:

Astonishingly, this quantum view is not merely an artifact of its current mathematical formulation. Analysis and experiments, independent of the present formulation of quantum mechanics, show that nature is so deeply acausal and nonlocal that any future replacement for quantum mechanics must have nonlocal connections that work without any exchange of energy or information between the parts of the correlated system-without any causal connection. This is an extraordinary fact that should play a central role in any approach to understanding nature in general and astrology in particular. This is a long way from the Cartesian/Newtonian view at the basis of current attempts at formulating a physical mechanism for astrological influence.

Piper Almanac 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith

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

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

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

That's my point. I think, there's only a single organizzation here (as the refs seem tosuggest), and that's CSICOP. Unless you can come up with a source which names many more organizations, it's the generalization which is unfair, don't you think? Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 12:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, there may or may not be more; it's ambiguous, but acceptable, in my view. Doovinator 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, but it ain't acceptable in my view.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 06:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Nature

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

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

Not really. Nature is excellent at reporting scientific research in any topic. In this case it happens to be astrology. So your analogy isn't right. Almost everything can be looked from a scientific perspective, and there's little which is more credible in "scientific research in astrology" than Nature. In fact, I'd say that the nature article is much more credible than any other research in astrology, because of the stringent quality checking and the fact that only sufficiently ground-breaking research is considered. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The odd thing to me is that science, which is based on observation alone and not at all on authority, now spends more time arguing over authority than doing any kind of ground-breaking research. Stringent quality checking and the like is great for weeding out frauds; witness the Korean cloning scandal, but it's not research. Doovinator 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Research requires valid hypotheses. In the case of the Shawn Carlson test, there were a few astrologers who refused to participate because of flaws in the hypothesis. Nature did not report these flaws because the editors do not understand astrology or what a valid hypothesis would be. The test was severely criticized by Hans Eysenck. Piper Almanac 18:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nature is a non-contender when it comes to astrological research. A top scientific journal is not an authority on everything on Earth just like you wouldn't expect the same from a top astrological magazine. Aquirata 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Vorpal blade, read the Talk page, don't just use it! Aquirata 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nature is a super contender when it comes to "scientific research on astrology". A top scientific researcg journal is an authority on scientific research on anysubject. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

No, I'm curious to know why you regard experimental evidence, which requires no knowledge of astrology, as untenable. Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me about experimental evidence on astrology that doesn't presuppose astrological knowledge. Aquirata 13:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Any claim can be tested in the absence of further knowledge on the subject. Claim having foo in you sign at birth increases the likely-hood of being fooist? That can be objectively tested. This is very basic application of the scientific method. Jefffire 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review suggestions

These points were brought up by User:RJHall in the peer review.

• What's the point of the Flammarion woodcut? How's it related to astrology? Perhaps we could replace it by a sample natal chart? I've deleted the Flammarion woodcut pic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moon and stock returns (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claims

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

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

Spiking the orange juice

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

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

Would you mind?

That people object to a lack of mechanism is a fact. We can probably find astrological sources saying so. This "yes, but" you're demanding is unneeded, disingenuous, and actually reads as rather juvenile. Marskell 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The counterpoint to the 'mechanism' objection is relevant. Your example is not. Aquirata 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is intensitive. Any point introduced that's critical, the knee-jerk response is to grope for some way to invert it. This is a perfect example of not letting the facts speak for themselves. Marskell 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How about:

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

Bobrick's The Fated Sky

Chris, you have removed this book, which I'm not familiar with (and the author's name was incorrect I believe). Amazon's reviews are very positive in general, and 52% buy the book after viewing its page (which is a very high ratio). In your opinion, do the inaccuracies outweigh the overall value of the book to justify removal? In other words, is the reader better off without knowing about this book? Aquirata 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that popularity alone was a reasonable gauge for the "overall value" of a book. siafu 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about popularity at all, and no connection was made to the overall value, anyway. Your point? Aquirata 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's all you talked about: positive reviews on Amazon, and good sales. Both of those are merely indications of popularity. My point is that this does nothing to indicate that the book has any value at all-- the only thing that's been said that is indicative is that it's inaccurate. siafu 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, you are misunderstanding me. Getting good reviews does not equal popularity. The fact that people decide to buy the book and not something else after viewing it on Amazon does not equal popularity. They both translate to perceived value. Sales volume or sales rank would correlate to popularity, but this is not at issue. My comment was directed at seemingly good perceived value at Amazon vs. Chris' evaluation. Aquirata 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstand so grossly. A sales figure, like the fact that 52% of people buy the book after viewing the page, is a measure of popularity only. So too is the fact that it is reviewed positively. The content of those reviews may be interesting to us, but the mere fact that they are generally positive is not. However, it's also true that "perceived value" based on the perceptions of the public at large is no more useful in determining a book's overall value in terms of its factual accuracy and informativeness than popularity. siafu 13:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that there are a number of other books on the history of astrology written by astrologers and academics that don't make the same ridiculous mistakes that this book makes, I do think that people would be better off without knowing about the book because then the same blunders wont be repeated over and over again by astrologers and researchers alike over the coming decades. I would much rather recommend books by more serious scholars such as James Holden, David Pingree, Nick Campion, Peter Whitfield, or Jim Tester. Bobrick's book suffers from a number of issues such as an over reliance on secondary and tertiary sources, bogus citations, religious favoritism, overtly biased reporting to the point of fanboyism, and generally poor organization. One of the more egregious, if not hilarious, examples of the types of mistakes contained in this book is on pg. 20 when he starts talking about "Palchus"

On the morning of July 14, A.D. 479, a worried client sought out an Egyptian astrologer in Smyrna by the name of Palchus and, at 8:30 A.M., asked whether a ship that he was expecting from Alexandria, now way overdue, would eventually arrive safely, and, if so, when...

The problem with this story is that "Palchus" is merely a pseudonym of a late 14th century Byzantine astrologer-scribe named Eleutherius Zebelenus of Elis, and not a 5th century Eyptian astrologer, as Bobrick would have you to believe. The data is actually from a group of genuine charts from the 5th century that Elutherius gathered together and edited under the name of "Palchus", but it is ridiculous that Bobrick simply attempted to turn "Palchus" into a living Egyptian astrologer from the 5th century when this was merely a handle of this Byzantine scribe, not to mention the fact that these might not even be horary charts to begin with. If he had really done his homework he would have realized how faulty this statement was, in addition to a number of other statements. Although it is possible that he was aware of these issues and decided to leave them in anyways in the thought these little issues of ‘historical accuracy’ aren't that big of a deal, and that no one would notice anyways. Who knows? The majority of the astrological community doesn’t know that much about the history of astrology so its not like they are going to call him out on this, and actual scholars would drop the book after a couple of pages.

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

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

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

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

P.S. On Palchus, Pingree thought Eleutherius was identifying Abu Mashar with this name. So the question might then be how much of the material is 14th century and how much is Abu Mashar. Zeusnoos 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Well you can't include every single book ever written, but that's not a reason for tossing the rest. Doovinator 01:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

'Balance' and 'totallydisputed-section' flags

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

My take is that many of the facts which are stated, especially from astrological sources are POV, dubious and can't be verified. Also, the article is POV pushing in favour of astrology because of you. That's why the balance tag. I support keeping the tag till your edits and deletions without discussion on the talk page are sorted outVorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Tags cannot be based on 'touch and feel'. Aquirata 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

These edits are unbalanced.[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any problems with them. Would you care to elaborate? Aquirata 14:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Those edits, involve removal of words or critisisms and push the astrology POV. Want a case by case analysis?Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you'll have to be more specific. Aquirata 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's my attempt.

• First, in [11], by removing "supposed", you are implying that astrology works, which is disputed. This is POV pushing in favour of astrology, don't you agree?

• Well, no, but it's a moot point now. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Then, in [12], you're making a factually inaccurate statement. You are implying that some of these claims have been published in mainstream scientific journals, which as Marksell pointed out, isn't true.

• Sorry, but I thought Med Hypothesis was a mainstream scientific journal. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• • And I would add in here, if your response is "ah ha, but this one is a mainstream journal!" then we should remove all the others and just leave that one. That's what's been demanded from the beginning. Marskell 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. Not only mainstream scientific journals are reliable sources. In the context of astrology, they are not the best sources to use. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• In [13], you're removing the importance and credibility of peer-reviewed research.

• I have explained this already. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• In [14], by removing valid critiscim, you're pushing the astrology POV.

• The removal of this sentence was in response to the removal of the counterpoint. It is POV to represent only one side of an issue. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• In [15], you're trying to discredit the scientific research, making an OR statement, and trying to imply that all personality tests are flawed. This is, IMHO, POV pushing

• I am not trying to discredit personality tests. The validity of them has been questioned in mainstream scientific journals. The applicability of them to astrology has also been questioned. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Finally, [16] is an irrelevant tangent, and has been already been discussed. The sole purpose of that sentence is to push the astrology POV.

• What do you mean by irrelevant tangent? The objection that was raised against astrology has been raised against science numerous times. By leaving that out, the reader is mislead into believing that this objection is specific to astrology, which is not the case. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is quite specific. If you need more examples, tell me. I'll look into the older page history and find them.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you like wasting your time. Quoting parts of the article that are in question rather than concentrating on my edits would be even better. Aquirata 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the leg work Vorpal. Also:

• Insisting that sources which make no mention of astrology should be used to support it [17].

• I challenge you to find the word "science" in every scientific paper published. If you can't determine what astrology is, under what authority do you remove astrological material? Aquirata 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Totally throwing off due weight by deciding to devote a paragraph to quotes from astrologers this very day.

• They happen to be scientists knowledgeable about astrology. Not too many of them you will find, so it's important to hear their views. Aquirata 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, at this point the section is totally disputed and the article as a whole is unbalanced. Marskell 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please identify parts in question. Aquirata 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The disputed tag remains. Of course, you feel you have an answer for everything, else there wouldn't be a dispute. Marskell 09:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you can only dispute the article in general, the tags will have to be removed. Aquirata 10:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Peer reviewed

Why do you keep deleting "peer reviewed"? Your comment is that "rmv fluff and irrelevance". But it's not irrlevance. It shows the importance and the credibility of the research. Please, oh please discuss here before you make changes! You're (inadvertently?) insulting the work of other editors by deleting without discussing!Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows that all scientific papers are peer-reviewed. It's like stating that "ball bearings contain globe-shaped balls. It is irrelevant information. We shouldn't be trying to fluff up statements to make them look better than they are. Aquirata 14:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Not all scientific papers are peer-reviewed. For an example, most scientific papers on astrology are not published in peer reviewed scientific journals.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 14:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Scientific journals" - you surely knew that this is what was meant from the context? Aquirata 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. Care to elaborate?Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 14:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've often wanted to remove some of the overreaching adjectives and commentary myself, and have edited some lately that seemed redundant as well as overreaching. When the writing strains a little to hard to make a point it actually dilutes its effectiveness. Both sides are occasionally guilty. Adding "peer reviewed" to Nature makes it seem like trying to milk the one source article that made it there for every last drop of credibility and substance. The strain shows and it's a bit undignified if nothing else. "Science journals" has a link and so does Nature. Piper Almanac 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, you're taking this as an undignified attack on astrology. What I'm trying to show by including "reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal" is the importance and credibility of this scientific research on astrology compared to other similar researches. I think, the fact that this research is the only one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is essential to this section. I can live with it as it stands now, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Mars effect critiscims

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

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

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

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

Hey, don't try to obscure the situation here with "facts". We don't need any of those. I'm sure that these guys have a perfectly irrational explanation for this. --Chris Brennan 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, I don't recall any such quote. Perhaps you or Chris can provide? Aquirata 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so it seems there is no such quote or claim. Aquirata 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Every possible claim for astrology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about replacing it with this sentence which is Marksell's idea?

Besides the Mars-athletes claims, astrological researchers claim to have found correlations for physical and behavioural characteristics, societal trends, and large geophysical events. We seem to have a clear consensus for this sentence.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 04:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

You misunderstand Aquirata, or perhaps you're deliberately ignoring what NPOV says in regards to pseudoscience. It does not state "represent the pseudoscientific viewpoint as a majority on pseudoscience pages." It says present the "majority (scientific)" view as the majority view. Period. You know this. You've been told a dozen times on the NPOV page itself. Marskell 12:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And you also know that the wording of that section has been questioned many times. "Majority = scientific view" is an assumption, or, in WP parlance, OR. Aquirata 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The policy has been questioned by people pushing pseudoscience. Create a controversy and then ignore policy because of it? Nice try. Marskell 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You know of course how ridiculous this sounds. Just as the policy has been defended by people pushing science does. Aquirata 10:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Another bloody thread on a stupid sentence

Why is this POV as your latest edit summary suggests? "Some critics object to the lack of an accepted astrological mechanism that would account for the supposed effects of celestial bodies on terrestrial affairs." Honestly, why? It's a fact and everybody (here) knows it's a fact. Leave aside whether there is a mechanism or whether you think it even needs one--it's been criticized on this basis. So can we save the stupid tangent please. Marskell 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you insists on removing the counterpoint, I will insist on removing the argument. All in the interests of NPOV. Aquirata 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But WHY IS IT POV? It's not. It's a simple statement of fact. It's true. Marskell 09:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, presenting just one side of the story is POV however true. Aquirata 10:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the story? Go read the section again and remind your self how much you've added for the "other side". Marskell 11:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The page is about astrology and not about debunking astrology. Aquirata 12:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The absence of properly conducted scientific evidence for astrology is rather an important part of the subject. See the pages related to creation science. Jefffire 12:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"The absence of properly conducted scientific evidence for astrology" is your view (POV) or assumption (OR). Failed studies must be presented and given their due weight. So do successful studies. Aquirata 12:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Further reading

I have reinstated this section. Let's have a discussion on it. Aquirata 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's a good start. Piper Almanac 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I already outlined the issues that I have with the 'further reading section' in an above post and none of those points were addressed by either of you. If you guys want to address those points then that would constitute a discussion, otherwise this is just a pointless distraction. --Chris Brennan 00:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I have addressed your points. Where are you lacking a response? Aquirata 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

All you said was that you would add two to three books for each section. That fails to address the length restriction issues that I brought up and the fact that the article is already longer than the Wikipedia limit on individual articles. It also doesn't address the other issues that I raised such as how those books would be selected, by whose standards, what traditions would be covered, how to get around the inherent bias surrounding promoting certain books in the first place, as well as other issues. So, no, you really haven't addressed my points at all. --Chris Brennan 00:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me reiterate:

• Length: This is true for the entire article, why cut one particular section? Rather, we should look for overly long sections and try to abbreviate them or move them out to separate articles.
• Selection, standards, coverage, bias: Same issue as editing an article. By applying policies, guidelines and common sense. By thrashing it out here. By trial and error.

I don't understand why we need to delete a section when we haven't even tried to have a go at it. Aquirata 00:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To make reading more convenient on my websites, I try to break-out sub-categories onto different webpages (for an example, see my www.Discount-Vehicle-Broker.Com). So, here are sub-categories for Astrology (I know some of these are currently used on Wikipedia):

• Aspects, Parallels & Midpoints;
• Astro-Carto-Graphy/Relocation Charts;
• Astrological Organizations;
• Career/Vocational Astrology;
• Domification (Mundane Houses);
• "Fixed Stars;"
• Further reading & external links:
• History of Astrology;
• Horary Charts;
• List of Astrologers;
• Mundane Astrology;
• Planets in Containment;
• Political Astrology;
• Relationship Astrology (Synastry & Composite charts);
• Star Constellations (which I reject);
• Timeline Updates (Transits, Progressions & Solar-arc Directions);
• Tropical Zodiac Signs;
• Uranian Astrology. Andrew Homer 00:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Further reading" and "External Links" sections, should both exist at the same time? From the way Citing sources: Further reading/external links reads, it looks like it should be one heading or the other, but not both. External links doesn't make a distinction. Dreadlocke 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestions (an incomplete list, no doubt):

• Traditions

• Ptolemy: Tetrabiblos
• Al Biruni: Book of instruction
• Fagan & Firebrace: Primer of sidereal
• Babylonian?
• Kabbalistic?

• Horoscopic astrology

• Hand: Horoscope symbols
• Frawley: Horary textbook
• Robson: Electional
• McWhirter: Astrology and Stock Market Forecasting
• Mundane?

• History & Culture

• Campion?
• Curry?
• Holden: History of horoscopic astrology
• Tarnas: Cosmos and Psyche

• Astrology and science

• Dean et al: Recent advances
• Eysenck&Nias: Astrology
• Ertel: Tenacious Mars effect
• Pottenger: Astrological research methods

• General

• de Vore: Encyclopedia
• Elwell: Cosmic loom
• Phillipson: Year zero

• Classics

• Morin: Astrologia Gallica
• Kepler: Harmonices mundi
• Lilly: Christian astrology

What about yours? By posting similar lists, we should be able to trim this to a reasonable size based on agreements. Aquirata 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said previously, I think that it is a bad idea to attempt to list all, or even give a partial list, of the astrological works in each tradition within the context of what is supposed to be a broad article which touches upon many different types and traditions of astrology. If anything, I think that this should be relegated to the articles specifically on certain traditions, branches and astrologers. Plus, the recommended reading section is not a requirement of a Wikipedia article and I see no reason to push other more important parts of this specific article aside in order to make room for what would still ultimately end up being an inadequate and essentially biased list which would slant towards one tradition or type of astrology or another. The list that you just gave here could be matched by an equal number of important books from the tradition of Chinese astrology. Twice as many extremely important books could be listed from the Indian tradition. Quite a few more from the Hellenistic tradition. This would amount to a gigantic list that would be completely unnecessary within the context of this specific article. --Chris Brennan 04:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are concerned about length, the reading list can be made into a separate article. Aquirata 10:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather, could an external sites that offers a comprehensive list of books be included as a link? Zeusnoos 14:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Pages should not be created for the sole purpose of providing a repository of links or further reading. This is the relevant section of NOT. Zeus' idea is simplest: agree on a couple of comprehensive external lists and use those. Marskell 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any suitable external sites presenting reading lists? Aquirata 11:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

History section

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

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

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

Shit, it's actually 57k. A lot of this is refs, which don't count toward the total, and the external links at the end. Per not a collection of links that section should be reduced. But we definitely shouldn't be expanding when it's this overweight. Marskell 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Astrology and science section is longer than desirable because the underlying article was deleted. It is very hard to cram all relevant issues here without a backup article. Aquirata 12:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chaucer and Shakespeare

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

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

Dispute resolution

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

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

OK. Done. Marskell 13:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

1. Aquirata (talk • contribs)
2. Chris Brennan (talk • contribs)
3. Jefffire (talk • contribs)
4. Marskell (talk • contribs)
5. Piper Almanac (talk • contribs)
6. VorpalBlade

Thanks. Aquirata 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I selected the people who have actively been a part of the content disputes and are still editing the page now. Marskell 14:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nature study

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

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

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

Predictions?

What does astrology predict for people born on space stations in interstellar space, on a Mars colony etc.?????

Count Iblis 16:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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