Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:57, 4 June 2011

Biography Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Astrology Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I know Dennis's precise birth data, but as I'm not sure he would want it published, I'm witholding it. MayoPaul5 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(citation needed): I shall try to find the origin of this assertion in next few weeks, but otherwise may have to delete POV part of the sentence. MayoPaul5 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's too bad. Crud3w4re 07:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

improve

Removed some spam -- Serious concerns remain for this article, even though it was tagged months ago. -- Notability concerns because references are still very weak, since it only links to a single trivial mention in a non-notable book. WP:NRVE MakeSense64 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

- It wasn't spam man. The article says "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources". Added a link to a page which gives a personal interview with Dennis Elwell, originally published in Garry Phillipson's Astrology in the Year Zero. V. informative interview which shows why Dennis Elwell is one of the outstanding astrologers of his generation. Can't see how you are going to build up the info when you remove such relevant information. Suggest you check that link again and reinstate.Clooneymark (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Note the article also gives Elwell's birth chart, which is talked about, but not given, in the above discussion.Clooneymark (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the link to the list of his published articles, fair enough; but it was one link and gave a lot of his work for anyone who wants to know more about his contributions. The personal interview link should definitely be re-instated. Also not happy about suggestion to drop this page because Dennis Elwell is very notable amongst astrologers. He gained a lot of press coverage for warning P&O ferries about an upcoming disaster on one of their ferries, recommending them to double-check their dafety procedures. Their letter to him saying they had nothing to worry about was in the post as the P&O ferry, Herald of Free Enterprise disaster occured. Lots of information and references to that on this page - http://www.skyscript.co.uk/shipelwell.html

I won't add that link in case you think I'm spamming and get paid for linking to it or something, but someone should.

And MakeSense64, can you remove that 'spam tag' from my user page. I've never had any controversy here nor any warnings or even one single comment on my edits before now. No one even bothered to welcome me when I joined up but when I have added my bits of info it has alsways been good, informative info not spam.

I want to get an answer to my comments cos I'm pretty annoyed at being labelled a spammer just for trying to help. If someone else agrees that my link to his interview was out of place then I'll definitely leave this page well alone and won't add any more links of that nature. I think I should reinstate that interview link so please speak up and let me know if you don't want me to do that Clooneymark (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The spam issue is explained on your talk page User_talk:Clooneymark -- Let me remind you that a core principle of WP is 'verifiability', not 'truth' WP:VERIFY . So it is not about me or you being happy (or not) about suggestions to improve this page. This page was tagged back in January by a registered WP editor , you can find him here User:Acabashi. If the article does not get improved it may be deleted. Improving the article is not being done by inserting more external links at the bottom of the article. What is needed are reliable sources MakeSense64 (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The spam issue is not satisfactorily explained on my user page. You just mumbled some words there.

Concerning Elwell's birth data which is of interest to many of the readers who are interested in Elwell as an astrologer, what is more reliable and easily verifyable than a link to a published interview where his birth chart is on display?

Because this article was tagged by one editor doesn't mean it should be deleted. I just checked the history of this page and see that most of the reasons for Elwell's notability have been deleted. The famous ferry prediction has been deleted because some editor thought it was 'phantastical'. That person mistook their view of the truth for verifyability. It is a verifyable fact that Elwell gained extra notability because of the reports of that well known prediction which added to his reputation. The article can and should cover that from a neutral and unbiased point of view. The link I gave above gives all the details of this. I could put the details into the Misplaced Pages article but I would still have to link to that page. Would that suit you better? If not, what's your suggestion?

Before anyone deletes this page note that the article has been heavily cut so that the reasons for Elwell's notability are not being shown. Clooneymark (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not my job to explain the WP policies around spam. You can read the WP guidelines, and I even gave you the links to them. -- If there are verifiable facts about Elwell, based on reliable outside sources as per WP guidelines (read them first), then they should be added together with the reference. That's why this article was tagged in the first place. WP is not interested in your or my opinion about Elwell or what some readers may find interesting about him. WP is about bringing plain facts that can be sourced. -- If in doubt, then it is better to first post what you want to add on the talk page, then add it if there is no objection to it after a week or so. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The last comment was all I needed. Fine. Will do that. Clooneymark (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what I would like to propose for this entry. I'll also add a photo of Elwell to Wikmedia commons but I can't see myself how to add images to main pages. Please discuss if you think there are problems with this.Clooneymark (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Figured out how to add the photoClooneymark (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Elwell (born 11:44 pm GMT, 16 February 1930 1930 in Stourbridge, England, UK) is a British astrologer, journalist, author, lecturer.

After teaching himself the basics of astrology as a teenager, in his early twenties he began writing regularly for American Astrology, the first popular astrology magazine, which acted as a platform for the leading astrologers of the day. The association continued for twenty years and subsequently led to an international reputation for his articles which appeared in most well known international astrology journals. Though a journalist by profession for most of his life, Elwell reported that he explored any byway that might throw light on astrology, leading to a study of science on the one hand, and occultists like Rudolf Steiner and Gurdjieff on the other. He began lecturing to astrologers in 1963 and gained a reputation for being an original thinker and stimulating speaker.

In 1987 Elwell gained significant press attention for a publicised prediction which forewarned two shipping companies of potential trouble at sea, one of them being the ferry company P&O Ferries. Nine days after P&O replied to Elwell that their procedures were designed "to deal with the unexpected from whatever quarter", their ship, the Herald of Free Enterprise, capsized at Zeebrugge with the loss of 188 lives.

In an interview Elwell explained that the warning letters were sent at the request of his publishers, to help raise his profile as an astrologer.

The book, Cosmic Loom, was published the same year (Unwin Hyman, 1987) and later republished in a revised and enlarged edition by the Urania Trust.

Elwell is also known for running an advanced correspondence course on astrology in the early 1990s entitled "The Chiron Project" which closed at the end of the 1990s when he entered retirement.

Works

• Elwell, Dennis: Cosmic Loom ISBN 1-871989-09-4 Publisher: Unwin Hyman, 1987 first edition; Urania Trust 1999 revised and enlarged edition.
• Elwell, Dennis: 'Here's the Answer, Now What's the Question' essay in The Future of Astrology Edited by A. T. Mann, ISBN 0-04-133023-4 Publisher: Unwin Hyman, 1987 First Hardback Edition; London.

References

1. "Astrodatabank entry for Elwell".Elwell talks about his time of birth in the interview published in Garry Phillipson’s Astrology in the year 2000 (London: Flare, 2000), saying “My own time of birth has been rectified by myself from my parents' recollection that I was born late at night. As I came into the world the clock downstairs kept striking, and the irritated doctor asked for it to be stopped. Synchronistically, it announced the arrival of a noisy nuisance! I have settled for 11:44 pm (16 February 1930, Stourbridge, UK)”.
2. Falconer, Kim (2005-07). Astrology and Aptitude: How to Become What You Were Meant to Be. American Federation of Astr. pp. x–. ISBN 9780866905367. Retrieved 28 May 2011. {{cite book}}: C1 control character in |pages= at position 3 (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. "Astrodatabank".
4. "Phillipson Interview".
5. "An Astrological Warning of Trouble at Sea".
6. "Phillipson interview". Press attention followed for the rest of the year: "One journalist wanted to know what else the sage could see, so I said that in the autumn I was worried about disasters on underground transport, ...The morning after the terrible Kings Cross fire the regional evening paper, the Express and Star, rang to ask if I recalled the interview I had given them, in which I had cautioned about such a tragedy, and they carried a report to that effect alongside their front-page story.
7. "Astrodatabank".

Your proposed edit will need to be improved on several points. -- Reference 1,3 and 7 go to the same page on astro-databank. This cannot be considered a 'reliable secundary source' because it depends largely on user input and cannot be verified unless it refers to other sources. If that is the case then these other sources should be given rather than an astro-databank link. -- Reference 2 looks OK to me. -- Reference 4 and 6 are also redundant, and is very likely to be challenged as a 'reliable secundary source' -- Reference 5 appears to be self-sourced. If the 1987 prediction did indeed gain significant press attention, then what we need is references to that press attention. No matter how true the prediction may have been , it shouldn't be mentioned if no high quality sources can be found for it. WP is not edited based on truth or our opinion, it is edited based on what we can verify. -- What we need is 'reliable sources'. Doing a google book search yields several references that can be used here. Focus on that instead. -- Your current edit will not satsify the editor who tagged this article as being written like an advertisment and lacking 'independent sources', in fact your proposed edit makes it look a lot worse. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

- Reference 1,3 and 7 go to the same page on astro-databank.

The astro-databank is reputable and known for being reliable because it uses the Rodden rating system which evaluates how reliable the information is. This one is rated A ‘accurate’.

- This cannot be considered a 'reliable secundary source' because it depends largely on user input and cannot be verified unless it refers to other sources.

Indeed it’s the same principle as Misplaced Pages. Even if that principle were of concern here - its not since WP requires citability not truth - it’s not even relevant in this instance. Most users can contribute to the biography pages as they can on WP, but the only pages that are locked for edits, and cannot be created or edited except by the administrators of the databank are those for the notable astrologers that they select. Those details are selected and protected.

Reference 4 and 6 are also redundant, and is very likely to be challenged as a 'reliable secundary source'

If the editor who tagged the article feels they are redundant they can easily be removed. They are there to show the published sources of the comments used in this item. It’s unlikely that the web source will be challenged as a reliable secondary source. Since you tried to make this point elsewhere I’ll repeat my answer, which you may not have seen already, here:

How do we know its credible? Easily answered. Its not about what you think or I think. Go to Google books and run a search on the word ‘Skyscript.co.uk’ and then check how many books, including academic publications, quote the site as their source of information. That explains my use of it. In many cases its the only source of easily accessed information because it covers a specialised level of the subject that goes beyond the popular end of astrology.

Reference 5 appears to be self-sourced. If the 1987 prediction did indeed gain significant press attention, then what we need is references to that press attention. No matter how true the prediction may have been , it shouldn't be mentioned if no high quality sources can be found for it. WP is not edited based on truth or our opinion, it is edited based on what we can verify. -- What we need is 'reliable sources'.

They are given here with refs to two reputable sources. The Skyscript site and the Garry Phillipson book. Since it’s documented and part of the public reputation of this man then WP needs to cover it. Why you are raising the matter of whether it’s true or not? Irrelevant. Truth is not being suggested one way or another here. This is just reporting in a neutral fashion.

Doing a google book search yields several references that can be used here. Focus on that instead.

Following your suggestion I did that. I ran a google book search for “dennis elwell astrology Herald Free Enterprise” and came up with 4 returns. However I can’t see the content, view what was written and I don’t know how to make those links. But surely this is not a problem - I gave reference links to substantiate the article content. If anyone wants to point those references elsewhere or to better sources that’s fine, great. What matters is that this presently poor quality page gets improved so that it’s a good entry in Wikkipedia. I’m not the one who has issues with where the references go or follow-up links. Let’s just get the page right.

And no, I don’t think I’ve made the page look a lot worse. It’s an improvement and might help to get the ugly tags removed. Hopefully others will now see this as something to keep and developClooneymark (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I will ask for editor assistance on this page. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Clooneymark (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class astrology articles
• Unknown-importance astrology articles
• WikiProject Astrology articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles