Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MakeSense64 (talk | contribs) at 05:55, 26 August 2012 (→Merge in Astrologer: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Astrology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astrology Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Occult This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult 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.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	Astrology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 11, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 13, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Mundane astrology was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 April 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Astrology. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

Dec 2001 – Aug 2005 Sept–Dec 2005 Jan – mid-Feb 2006 mid-Feb – April 2006 May 2006 Early June 2006 Mid June 2006 Early July 2006 End of July 2006 July–Dec 2006 Dec 2006 – May 2007 June 2007 – March 2009 Feb 2009 – April 2010 May 2010 – March 2011 February–March 2011 March 2011 March–July 2011 June–July 2011 July 2011 July–August 2011 August–Oct 2011 October 2011 October 2011 Oct–Nov 2011 Nov 2011 – June 2012 May–June 2012 June–July 2012 July 2012 July 2012 – __

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Status as a science in India

I had moved the paragraph about astrology's status in India to the "scientific appraisal" section and Dominus Vobisdu reverted it: .
I still think this paragraph better belongs where I had put it, because if the "scientific appraisal" of astrology is different in India then we should mention it there, not in the "cultural influence" section where it appears out of place. Personally, I don't agree with the Indian view upheld by their high court, but we are supposed to be neutral. This has relevance for the scientific status of astrology, but I do not think it deserves more weight than it gets right now. If we agree that this needs to be in the article, then all we need to do is find concensus where to best put it. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The text is not about the scientific treatment but the treatment by the indian government. What is science isn't decided by the courts. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but it doesn't fit so well in the "cultural influence" section, or maybe we need to rephrase it. Politicians do not decide what is science. But in a country where a clear majority of the voters believes in astrology there is no incentive for the politicians to talk or rule against astrology. Are there any sources documenting the opposition there was to this ruling in India? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The text you moved has the opposition from scientists. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Vedic astrology -- critically examined"

I proposed the following external link for addition to the Hindu astrology article: "Vedic Astrology -- critically examinied". As it contains an extended historical comparison between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs with a discussion of the zodiac's importation to India from Greece, I would like to suggest it for addition to this article as well.--Other Choices (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, self/vanity published, etc. Only good for expressing the author's opinion, assuming the author's opinion is notable which it is not. Uses Yahoo groups as references? Lol. Typifies what could charitably be described as a colonial attitude held by western astrologers towards eastern astrology. I found this passage to be particularly rich, given the behavior of astrology activists on Misplaced Pages:

"Unfortunately, some <Vedic astrologers> are not willing or able to discuss the matters in a sober and objective way but respond with aggression, tell their opponents that they have no competence at all, ridicule them, or accuse them of telling lies or wanting to destroy Hindu culture."

So, no, not acceptable here or at Hindu astrology. Skinwalker (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that nothing on Astrology websites will be found reliable here. TippyGoomba (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Other Choices. Bottom-feeding with regard to sources is unlikely to produce anything of encyclopedic value. Please start exploring high quality sources from the real academic world and give up relying on low quality in-universe sources, at least in your role as a WP editor (what you do in other aspects of your life is your own business). In-universe sources are basically worthless to anyone outside of the astrological community, including to us here on WP. They can only be used as supplemental sources when the material they contain is discussed by real-world scholars in reliable real-world publications. To use them directly would amount to original research and synthesis.

Furthermore, the "expertise" of astrologers is recognized by no one outside of the astrological community. They cannot be relied upon for even basic information about astrology itself. Any dork can call themself an expert in astrology and publish articles or books or set up a website. Without real-world scholarly review, there's no way for us to tell the difference between dorks and experts. Just because a publication like Correlations presents itself as an academic journal does not mean that it is. Even works by recognized academic experts like Curry, Tarnas and Campion are worth very little without real-world scholarly review. Lots of real-world scholars disgorge unmitigated blither when the peer-review "camera" is turned off, even Nobel prize winners like Linus Pauling and William Shockley.

Also, even real-world sources vary greatly in reliability and utility, with uncited doctoral dissertations ranking far, far lower on the list than peer-reviewed articles and books that have been widely cited. I understand that reliable sources on astrology are hard to come by, but this does not mean that we should relax our standards to include unreliable in-universe sources and lower-quality real-world sources.

As I've said before, information that cannot be found in high-quality real-world sources probably shouldn't be mentioned in articles in WP. There are other venues for that, like Astrowiki, which is aimed at an in-universe audience.

If you want to be a productive WP editor, aim high as far as sourcing is concerned. Learn to find and read real-world scholarly sources. Scraping the bottom of the barrel is not likely to yield anything of encyclopedic value as far as WP is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Skinwalker, thank you for the polite tone of your comments, but there appears to be a bit of confusion here. You may have misread both my initial post and the source in question, as follows:

• I proposed this source as an external link. Per WP:ELMAYBE, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" are to be considered. Accordingly, I brought up this link for consideration.
• The author of this source, Dieter Koch, is not "any dork" (as Dominus Vobisdu implies), but rather he holds a master's degree in Philosophy, Sanskrit, and Classical Greek, making him (perhaps uniquely) qualified to discuss the subject matter of his article. The content of the article is taken from the upcoming third edition of his book. As you mention, the book is self-published, which of course disqualifies it as a reliable source, but not as an external link.
• The author's use of yahoogroups as a reference was judiciously done, if you examine exactly what he was referring to in the article. (He cited yahoogroups in three footnotes out of a total of 50 in the entire article.) Your association of his use of yahoogroups with a "colonial attitude" is simply groundless, in light of the text at note 12a where he cites yahoogroups in association with a Hindu scholar's attempts to reform Hindu astrology. Koch's point here is that this discussion is taking place, and he cites yahoogroups to show the reader WHERE this discussion is taking place.
• If I understand you correctly, your mention of Koch's reference to those who are unable "to discuss the matters in a sober and objective way but respond with aggression" is not meant as a reason to reject this proposed external link.

@DV, you also appear to misunderstand my proposal to add an external link to the article. In addition, your incivil tone detracts from the intellectual content of what you were trying to say. To quote from WP:CIVIL: "Try not to get too intense. Other people can misread your passion as aggression. Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully." Other Choices (talk)

See WP:ELNO: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.

It looks like unverified research to me (aka, ramblings). TippyGoomba (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? I wouldn't characterize his article as "ramblings," and your phrase "unverifIED research" is different from WP:ELNO's "unverifiABLE research." His article is extensively footnoted, which of course provides for verifiability.--Other Choices (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The external links section on this article has often become a waste dump in the past, so now it simply has a general link to Open Directory Project. If you try to edit the "External links" section you will instantly see that it has a "NoMoreLinks" warning. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

another Hindu reference sourced to astrologer James Braha

Recently MakeSense64 added a sentence to the Hindu astrology sub-section that was sourced to a self-published book by "in-universe" astrologer James Braha. I raised the concern that this wasn't a reliable source, but no other editor shared this concern, and the addition to the article was allowed to stand. If the editors on this page continue to consider Braha to be a reliable source, that's fine with me. I've added another sentence to the beginning of the Hindu astrology sub-section using a different book by the same author and publisher. If other editors now decide to revert, based on the logical view that Braha is NOT an acceptable source, then I think it would be consistent to also delete the other sentence that is sourced to Braha.--Other Choices (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember adding anything like that. I have done some cleanup in that section, but did not add anything. And where did you raise concern about "my addition"? Please do not speculate about who added what in the article. If you are not sure who added what, then just comment on content without mentioning editors. See WP:CIVIL.

The source you mention was added there last year by Coaster92: . Of course, there are probably better sources for that piece of information.

The sentence you now added appears rather useless to me, and I think you will need a much better source for statements about the "culture". To use an astrology source for "what astrologers believe or do" would be one thing, to use an astrology source for general statements about Indian culture is quite another thing. Do you see the difference?

You may also want to read WP:POINTY, because the way you explain your edit here is pointing in that direction.MakeSense64 (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see now, you edited the sentence that cites Braha (which is why I thought you added the source), but you didn't add the source. I raised my concern earlier here.

I see the difference between using an astrology source for astrological practice and using it to illustrate a cultural point, so I removed that part from the sentence.

Thank you for bringing up WP:POINTY, and for being inclined to give me the benefit of the doubt. My point here was to establish whether Braha (and by extension, other in-universe sources) is off-limits for the article in all cases, to clarify what I can and cannot reasonably propose for inclusion. It was my understanding (per the cited diff above) that a self-published source like Braha was unacceptable in all cases, but I don't mind being corrected.

It looks like Braha was earlier being used to reinforce a point made using a reliable source, but your cleanup eliminated the other source.--Other Choices (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific, and provide diffs of the source being removed, so we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I figured out what happened. In this diff, you split in half a paragraph referenced to Lewis, moving the second half to another section and leaving the first part without a reference, except for the appearance that it was all cited to Braha. Then MakeSense64 came along and cleaned up the paragraph with this diff. Perhaps a workable solution would be to remove all reference to Braha and restore some of the language drawn from Lewis, adding a citation.--Other Choices (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The cleanup I did in those sections was mainly to restore NPOV. We don't need to be describing Western astrology in the Hindu astrology section. It was written too much from the Western astrology point of view. We are just to give basic descriptions of the main traditions here, and further details are to go in the standalone articles about these traditions. We also try to consider due weight, so try to give somewhat similar space to these major astrology traditions.

In answer to OC. Why are you trying to establish which (if any) in-universe sources can be used? The normal way of working is first try to write the article on the basis of the best and most independent sources we can find. Trying to add material on the basis of lower quality and in-universe sources is always the last stop, not the first thing to do. Previous problems with this article have always come with editors who insisted on adding questionable in-universe stuff. For example, if we were to write an article about the US presidential elections, we would also not start by using the publications of the Republican party as a source wherever we can, would we? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Haven't got time to edit at the moment, but if you are looking for sources on Indian astrology there are scientific papers by David Pingree. We are only citing him once at the moment, and that's only a Britannica article he co-wrote. His papers should be a good start. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link that summarizes Pingree's basic contribution to the study of Hindu astrology. It's not a reliable source, of course, but its two footnotes tell us exactly where to look in Pingree's own writings, if anyone has the inclination and access to a good university library.

And here's a collection of astrology-related articles from the Times of India.--Other Choices (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite a while ago, I added a a couple of lines about the difference between eastern and western astrology to make it more clear. I am not an expert in astrology and I could not make sense of the section, which very likely could be understood by someone more knowledgeable about the topic. I researched to find some explanation that might be helpful to a reader coming to this article with no background in the subject, but hoping to learn about the topic. I found the brief explanation in Braha's book. If there is a better source, so be it. My only concern/recommendation is to retain the brief explanation for newcomers to the topic.Coaster92 (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"astronomical phenomena predict or cause events in the human world"

Recently the first sentence of the lede was changed from "Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world" to "Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that astronomical phenomena predict or cause events in the human world." I just reverted it for the second time, and I won't touch it again (if somebody re-reverts) to avoid edit warring. I'm going to have my say right here and let other editors do what they will with it.
I don't think this is a good change for the following reasons:

• There was no consensus for this change to the lede, which has been pretty stable recently.
• Astronomical phenomena don't predict things; people predict things!
• The use of the word "cause" is problematic, because modern western astrologers typically deny a causal relationship between astronomical phenomena and human events. The standing word "relationship" is both more neutral and more accurate, in my opinion.--Other Choices (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

@OC. Just a few days ago you added this sentence in the Hindu astrology section: "Hindu astrology is oriented toward predicting one's fate or destiny."

And if we look at common Western astrology practices like Transit (astrology), Astrological progression and Horary astrology, then isn't it abundantly clear that most astrology techniques are still being used to predict/forecast events? The lede of these articles starts right away with this sentence: "Astrological transits are one of the main means used in horoscopic astrology to forecast future trends and developments...."

We cannot deny the obvious. If you go to any astrology forum you can see that most astrologers are still trying very hard to predict events. I do agree that the formulation you reverted was not phrased very well, and it is true that not all astrologers make predictions.

I think a better phrasing would be: "Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that astronomical phenomena can be used to answer questions or make forecasts about events in the human world." MakeSense64 (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using the word "predict," as long as we say that humans (and not phenomena) are doing the predicting. Perhaps language like "...hold that astronomical phenomena can be used to predict..."--Other Choices (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I propose merging in: Hard aspect (astrology), Angle_(astrology), Yod (astrology), Promittor_(astrology), Orb (astrology), Dissociate aspect (astrology), Kite aspect and Departing aspect (astrology) as well as others from in Category:Astrological aspects, into a single section in this article. There are far too many sub-articles on technical aspects of astrology which likely fail the test of notability. If it gets too large, it can be rolled off as a single combined article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good idea. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support or support if only sourced material is merged. Formerip (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support With FormerIP's caveat. Also, there is likely still a lot of stuff left over from the walled garden days of astrology before the WP:ARBPS ruling. One of these days I'm going to go through the various astrology categories and trim the fat. For instance, I find it hard to believe that the various BLPs we have on astrologers have adequate sourcing considering that mainstream media rarely touch it. Is Robert Curry really notable enough for an article? Sædon 00:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply I guess you mean Robert Currey. There is no shortage of problem cases in List of astrologers and Category:Astrologers. But when I put one in AfD last year this was the result: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Little Astrology Prince. Currey's article is better sourced than that one.

WP has put the bar very low for astrologers. If you read WP:ACADEMIC, section "Notes to specific criteria", then #6, 7 and 8 are clearly excluding pseudo-science related activities or books. So, an academic who publishes astrology books/journal or starts an astrology "institute" does not gain notability for it. But when an ordinary person writes astrology books and get some friendly colleagues to mention or comment on it in their in-universe publications, then they do get a wp article as astrologers. Isn't that weird? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To generate some attention from the community you need to post at wikiprojects like the wikiproject astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Even some of the biographies of deceased people have dubious notability: Anthony_Griffin_(astrologer) even has the sentence: "Little is known of the author". :| IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the creations of our old friend Zac, as you can see in the history. How do you dare to doubt the notability of an English astrologer, even when little is known about him?. ;-) MakeSense64 (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. There are many more of these in Category:Technical factors of astrology. I recently prodded the most useless ones, but there is more cleanup/merging to do. That kind of articles would be OK in a wikia devoted to astrology, but this is a general purpose encyclopedia. Can try to merge those that are least halfway sourced, and for the rest I would consider ProD or AfD. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Note. I seem to have misread the question. With merge I mean merge into Astrological aspect. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support merging any material that is truly noteworthy to a general reading audience and is supported by real-world independent sources, but flushing everything that is of interest only in universe or relies solely on in-universe sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Wait a minute. The content in question is specifically related to western astrology. It shouldn't be merged here, but to that article.--Other Choices (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Most of this material is specific to Western Astrology, and would be out of place in a top-level article on astrology in general. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

They sure shouldn't come in the general astrology article. We do have Astrological aspect and while it needs more sources, that's where a bunch of these articles should be merged into. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Western_astrology and Astrological aspect work as merge targets. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge in Astrologer

Astrologer appears to largely overlap with what is covered in the article already and seems ideal for a merger. Any opinions? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I remember from earlier discussion, the idea is to have an article similar to Astronomer. It is intended to describe their profession, practices, history... I did a lot of cleanup in that article last year, and it has been quite stable since (it used to be a kind of waste dump full of astrologer names). Just like we have articles like Mathematician and Biologist, it makes sense to have Astrologer as a standalone article. And it appears to be properly sourced. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class astrology articles
• Top-importance astrology articles
• WikiProject Astrology articles
• B-Class Occult articles
• Unknown-importance Occult articles
• WikiProject Occult articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics