Talk:Astrology/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Astrological techniques and practices

This section is in dire need of editing. Currently it jumps right into Western forecasting techniques, which is not where we should start. There should be an overview of classes of techniques before anything. Who feels qualified enough to make a proposal? Petersburg (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like that might be you :) Is it something you would consider (?) be good if you could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I may not be qualified to do this but can get the ball rolling. Petersburg (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed the order of paragraphs within and moved entire section further down in the article. This subject is vast and I don't believe I could do justice to it with my current resources. Is there a single reference that gives a complete overview of astrology? Petersburg (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

History: Contemporary changes: Western

Should John Addey not be mentioned here with his pioneering research on harmonics? This in my view was a major advance for astrology. Petersburg (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

John Addey should definitely be mentioned. I had limited time editing that section under Peter Strempel's razor timetable. IMO a sentence on his work with harmonics would be sufficient. The glaring omission from the page is of course, Ptolemy - who should be prominently in the history (and Hellenistic) section. Robert Currey talk 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I have added a citation for the C.S.Lewis reference in the Effects on World Culture section and altered "..characteristics and symbols of the seven heavens." to "...the characteristics and symbols of the seven planets that comprised the heavens in medieval astrology." The seven heavens has an entirely different meaning. Let me know if you are not happy with this or have a better suggestion. Robert Currey talk 23:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede: Para 2 Origins of the Revival

"It (astrology) experienced an increase of popular interest in the 20th century, partly through the popularity of newspaper horoscopes and by association with New Age philosophies."

There is no doubt that Sun Sign astrology (as published in newspapers and magazines) has been responsible for widespread popularity in astrology. I am not sure I understand by association with New Age philosophies here, though I will read the cited pages of Nicholas Campion (AHOWA Ch.17) to see if there is an association and how much of an impact they had. Is Jung included among these New Age philosophers? Personally, I find the term New Age to be a weasel word, though I am not sure I know of a better one.

The first reason I question this statement (above) is that I believe the revival in astrology in the 70s and 80s when I started was the models and lexicon inherited from Carl Jung, which inspired the writings and lectures of Liz Greene and Stephen Arroyo and continues to underpin a great many astrologers. The second reason was the results of Gauquelin's research which continues to show that at the very basis of astrology there is a proto-science. It was Gauquelin's evidence that pulled in Professor Hans Eysenck and many astrologers who are into statistics and computer programming.

Campion places Jung as "the seminal figure in the development of twentieth century astrological thought, ... He gave astrology an intelligent modern voice, allowing it to appeal to a much wider educated constituency than had previously been the case." AHOWA Vol.p.252 Nick backs this up with a quote from Charles Carter, Pres of Astrological Lodge (1969). Jung even has an impact on Sun Sign astrologers like Shelly Von Strunckel or Jonathan Cainer - maybe that is what is meant with by association? Robert Currey talk 00:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Robert Currey for this perspective. A better understanding would be that astrology contributed to New Age thought rather than the other way around, which seems to be suggested by the current lede. The concept of the New Age has become a bit toxic, because it's been corrupted in recent years, and especially in Wikipedia, to a sort of spiritualist revival to the omission of the impact of its environmental, engineering, food production and health, economic, multicultural, etc. aspects. The references from AHOWA seem good to me. Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Templates on top

There are many templates on top that clutter the page. A complete list is as follows:

• This article is written in American English
• Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
• This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Astrology article
• Find sources: "Astrology" – news · books · scholar · free images
• This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team
• Astrology is a former featured article candidate
• The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute
• This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects
• Please read before starting
• There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article

Surely we don't need all of this. Thoughts? Petersburg (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest take out "This article is undergoing revision. A proposed draft is located at Talk:Astrology/Workpage." as this was Peter Strempel's draft razor editing page in March/April.

• "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information."

Not only should this remain, I think this guide should be enforced by all editors whether they agree with the changes made or not. I propose that all changes other than typographical, grammatical, link repair/correction and tagging should be discussed here well in advance of editing. It may slow the editorial process, but it will ensure a consistently high standard. For example, you have just added 7 names - 4 of whom are unknown to me and don't appear to have Wikipedia biographies according to your links. I request that you revert this and propose these individuals with your reasons why they should be added on this page? Robert Currey talk 16:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the controversial content flag. Petersburg, in Notable Personalities, I am also unfamiliar with the unlinked names except Jerome. Please give reasons for the additions. Also, while Cicero "contributed" to astrology he was the critic that Ptolemy addressed. Maybe Cicero belongs in the Criticism section. Just a quick look at that section shows problems, for example, "Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (1292–1350), in his Miftah Dar al-SaCadah, also used empirical arguments in astronomy to refute the practice of judicial astrology." The blockquote for this source is in the form of questions. Since when do questions "refute" anything? Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So far then:

* Keep

- The subject of this article is controversial

* Delete

- This article is undergoing revision

Replied to Notable personalities comments under that heading. Petersburg (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also get rid of:

* Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience (a peripheral subject)

* Find sources (why have it here?)

* This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team (great, so what?)

* Astrology is a former featured article candidate (great, so what?)

* Please read before starting (how many guidelines do we need to show here?)

* There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article (not relevant any more)

Please comment. Petersburg (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In what way is the arbcom ruling peripheral? It was central to a recent controversy here (which generated a lot of talkpage activity). Ditto for the canvassing warning; it's not long since we saw evidence of offsite coordination by somebody who didn't agree with the existing consensus - as you are surely aware.

This is just an article talkpage; having a few headers is hardly an obstacle to the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the Arbcom ruling, as it will help new editors know the position and time will not be wasted debating it here. Robert Currey talk 00:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Preferred spelling for articles

Finally found the reference to this, and I didn't want to bury it in the discussion above. Here it is: Should I use American English or British English? The relevant sentence: General topics can use any one of the variants [British or American], but should generally strive to be consistent within an article. Since both astrologers and general readership would predominantly be from the US as opposed to from Britain, I believe it makes sense to use American spelling. Petersburg (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you were Americanizing the spelling. I was a bit offended until I realized that all my content is written in American spelling. I've given in but I sort of like the variety. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I like variety, too; however, the directive is to strive to be consistent. I don't really care which spelling we use except that the case for American is better than anything else. Petersburg (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you would be well advised to look into the long (and sometimes ugly) history of this particular debate before making such sweeping assertions. The relevant guidelines are in the manual of style, particularly MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN. Arbitrary changes from one variant to the other are actively discouraged. The correct approach with articles where there is no immediate linkage between the topic and one language variant is to use whichever variant was first used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The references you cited do not support your assertions. MOS:RETAIN writes: Where an article [...] shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor. An editor who determines the variety of English that is in use for a particular article may assist other editors by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on the article's talk page to document that determination. And MOS:ENGVAR starts with: Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. They underline the point I was making, and a discussion on spelling is more than appropriate. I proposed to use American spelling through-out since there is no other variant that could be considered dominant. In that sense, since I'm not aware of anyone else bringing up this topic in the recent past, I could be considered the first major contributor as per MOS:RETAIN. So should we start with adding a Varieties of English template? Petersburg (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this article has enough problems, without bringing in a perennial debate from outside, but your interpretation of MOS:RETAIN is highly questionable. The 'first major contributor' is exactly what it says ' the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety...' One would probably have to go back to early versions of the article to find whichever word came to determine this, but that is what MOS:RETAIN states. If you think that MOS:RETAIN is wrong, this isn't the place to argue the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

...And a little checking reveals that it's a victory for the Redcoats. As the edit summary helpfully notes, the first version of the article had "individialised" [sic] - corrected in the 2nd version to "individualised". [[1]] British English - not much room for debate, I'd suggest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This I believe to be an incorrect interpretation of MOS:RETAIN, so I beg to differ. Editing an article doesn't constitute disambiguation of variety. The first person to bring up the issue of spelling and making a determination is the first major contributor. Moreover, the current variety is clearly US as evidenced by center, centered, favorable, labeled, skeptical, artifacts, etc. In fact I couldn't find a single word that accords to the British variety where there is a difference between the two. Even From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia fails the British spell check. :) Petersburg (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Variety of English template placed accordingly. Petersburg (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why this is appropriate: An editor who determines the variety of English that is in use for a particular article may assist other editors by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on the article's talk page to document that determination. MOS:RETAIN Petersburg (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The basis for supporting the American variety: When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. MOS:RETAIN Petersburg (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you debating yourself here, Petersburg? I'm with AndyTheGrump. But who the hell cares? Ooh yah, that'd be you, wouldn't it? Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I had meant to comment on this but my time is really short this week. Petersburg I'm happy that you are taking responsibility for making sure that spellings are consistent across the article. Thanks Zac Δ talk 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll state for the record that I consider Petersburg's interpretation of MOS:RETAIN to be incorrect. However, in this particular case I frankly don't see the point in debating the issue further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto that. I wasn't commenting on how the policy ought to be interpreted because I couldn't claim to know. Would have gone with British spellings myself but it's not something I'm fussed about. More important that the page is consistent and that we have someone willing to ensure it is. Zac Δ talk 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

'Tis true, gentle reader that among the horns and footprints of unkind warfare we care not for the truth or kindness... . Nevertheless, American imperialist ambitions are a real issue (look up repeated Chinese demands seeking to ban Wikipedia in China). Also, see my comment here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Comment_from_an_outsider. I have rarely heard as elitist a comment as the assumption that most astrologers are from the USA. It seems to me that English-speaking astrologers in either China or India might outnumber the entire population of the USA, let alone American astrologers. You ought to get specific with references about your assertion or pull your head in. As for the the tag at the top of this article about language conventions, I didn't care until you called the rest of us fuckwits. Now I do care, and I insist that you undo your edit to raise the flag, and that you debate this issue in a rational fashion. Or, as I suspect, we can assume AndyTheGrump is right, and I'd like to see from you, as a sign of your good faith, that you remove the flag from the top the page yourself.

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Refuted

Just undid an edit in which the word refutation/refuted was unnecessarily replaced by criticism/criticized. The source in question uses the word refuted. See: [2] Pages 68 and next. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And I put quotation marks around the words, which I believe is what we are trying to convey here. Petersburg (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 though your source is verifiable, it is not convincing. It says that literary scholars devoted efforts to refuting astrology by saying it is somehow unfortunate that medicine belongs to the same class as astrology, by quoting from the Koran, by saying it does not serve to understand theology, by saying it leads to atheism, and by stating that it does not belong to physical science. Will it be necessary to add all this into the article? Atheism was a very serious charge, which in this case might have justified the use of the strong word "refute," possibly making the accusations more severe than "condemn." Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bring that source, or decide what quote was taken from it. The author of that book seems to be notable, has a page here George Saliba.

If you are not "convinced" by this source, then you can always put up the question on the reliable sources noticeboard.

As I hope you know, we are not here to include only the sources that we consider "true" or "convincing", we are here to report on what we can find about the topic in quality sources. That's what NPOV is all about. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable personalities

I would like to propose the addition of a (sub)section about notable personalities who seriously studied astrology, had a significant effect on the course of astrology, or their thinking was profoundly effected by astrology through the ages. These do not have to be astrologers and could be added under an existing section such as History or Effects on World Culture. Names such as Hippocrates, Ptolemy, Paracelsus, Pythagoras, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Cardan, Campanus, Brahe, C. Hayden, Flamsteed, Newton, Jung, Dante, Emerson, Bacon, Aquinas, Milton, Franklin, Twain and Shakespeare come to mind. Thoughts? Petersburg (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Like it very much, although it could require a lot of content Zac Δ talk 01:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is of interest and would add to the page, provided each one is well referenced or a group referenced.

• When you write Twain, do you mean Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) as I did not know he studied astrology?
• Referencing for Newton, should IMO refer to his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms (1728) as we can only guess that he studied judicial astrology at Trinity, Cambridge and there is no evidence that he was a practitioner.
• If you include Shakespeare, you might also include Chaucer, though these both could be in the section under literature. Also what about more recent authors? Robert Currey talk 08:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mark Twain, yes. Not sure to what extent he went with his studies, but he was certainly aware of comets as omens. He wrote: "I was born with Halley's Comet, and I expect to die upon its return." References, for example (they are numerous): http://www.xomba.com/famous_astrology_quotes_jesus_einstein_shakespeare_etc http://www.randi.org/jr/013103.html . Agree on Newton, focus should be on his Chronicles. Under literature even the Bible could be added as it contains numerous references to astrology. Refs e.g. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/astrology.html http://www.gotquestions.org/astrology-Bible.html . There are many recent authors who use, write about or allude to astrology in a literary work but they can typically be classified as part of the New Age movement, so I'm not sure how relevant that is. Petersburg (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Petersburg, I think your notable list is good as they were all AFAIK practicing or contributed significantly to astrology. I am glad you left Newton out as I think his contribution is peripheral and he did not practice astrology. There are still astrologers quoting Newton's remark to Halley which was about religion not astrology. I note the reference to notable astrologers is Eysenck, H.J., Nias, D.K.B., Astrology: Science or Superstition? Does that cover Galen, Paracelsus, Girolamo Cardan, Taqi al-Din who are not referenced in Bruce Scofield's article? If so, are you able to add the page numbers. I have mislaid my copy of S or S and have ordered another. Robert Currey talk 06:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Newton should only be mentioned in terms of his Chronology. I'm not aware of any written proof for him practising astrology, although he was clearly drawn to the mystical and spent most of his life on such subjects. Page numbers from Eysenck & Nias: Cardan 7, 68; Galen 6; Paracelsus 6-7; al-Din not mentioned. Out of interest, others on pages 1-11 are: Bok, Sagan, Feyerabend, Hynek, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Cicero, "almost all great scholars during the Renaissance", Manilius, Brahe, Kepler, Jung, Allport, Goodstein, Brazis, Jerome, Rockwell. Petersburg (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Separated one paragraph under History into this new subsection. There is relevant content also under Effects on world culture. Where should this subsection be properly placed? Petersburg (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Expanded the list and clarified the wording. Haven't yet added C. Hayden, Flamsteed, Newton, Emerson, Dante, Bacon, Aquinas, Milton, Franklin. Others (Twain, Shakespeare, Chaucer) should be under Effects on world culture. Petersburg (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be critical but I think the list is already too long and I'm not sure what it adds to the page to continue it as just a list of names, without any kind of explanation about how these people were connected with astrology - in what way did their interest matter? As a reader it irritates me to see this in the middle of the page where, without explanation or reason, it makes me feel less informed rather than more informed. Can the list go at the end, and could there be a footnote on each name mentioned, to show why that person's association with astrology was significant? Now we can how it is developing can we halt to ask whether it is working like this, and what the other editors feel about thge length of it? Zac Δ talk 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zac on this. A list of names without explanation looks like a testimonial. I would like to see each one referenced with explanatory comments in the footnote about their connection as suggested above. Not only would this be informative, but it would help future discussions by those who might want to delete them.

Since AFAIK every scholar born prior to 1650 would have studied astrology, you could list every natural philosopher or cosmologist. So I think the selection should be narrow based on notability, verifiability, legacy/public interest and the extent of involvement with astrology. Many astrologers or practitioners like Al Biruni, Ptolemy, Cardano, Bruno, Dee, Galileo, Kepler & Jung were polymaths. Some like Lilly and arguably Ficino were primarily astrologers. I think those involved in literature, poetry or the arts should be separate. Also, Dante and Flamsteed were critics. Kepler was a critic of astrological practice and some techniques but definitely a practitioner and significant contributor. Newton was a critic of judicial astrology, but contributed to natural astrology (the tides) and the astrological ages. I believe that this all needs to be made very clear in the footnotes. With Mark Twain, we need more than the comet quote. When I get a chance I will also comment on the thread Templates on top which also refers to the recent listing on the page - which I think should be undone asap. Robert Currey talk 09:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with both of you. The addition of questionable notable personalities, however, has sparked this debate, which was lacking before. I'd like to see others contribute here so we can come to an agreeable list and wording. Petersburg (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Petersburg, I question the inclusion of Cicero who I had considered to be a critic. Can you support his inclusion? Robert Currey talk 23:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Cicero wrote one of the earliest attacks on astrology in On Divination. He belongs in a list of critics, not proponents. --Chris Brennan (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris for the confirmation. I have removed Cicero from the list. On checking the sources (Eysenck & Nias 1982 p.6), it appears Lucretius was also a critic so I have deleted his name as well. All the other names are sourced - except for Taqi al-Din. If we are looking to include a notable Islamic astrologer or scholar who contributed to astrology, surely we should consider at least one of the following: Alchabitius, al-Razi, al Shirazi, al-Buruni, Albumasar, Al Khwarizmi or al-Kindi? AFAIK al Khwarizmi is probably the most notable in terms of his impact on the world. Robert Currey talk 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Albumasar was the most significant astrologer, while al-Kindi is more well-known outside of his astrological work, although he still made some important contributions to the field. Those are the two that I would probably single out though. --Chris Brennan (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "Western astrologers don’t deal with stars"

From a New York Times article:

Mr. Brezsny and other astrologers say they have long known that the pairings of constellations and astrological signs don’t match, but that Western astrologers don’t deal with stars — as some other branches of astrology do — but rather the planets and solar system.

(From a discussion at Ophiuchus.) — kwami (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kwami – just finished reading that news item. It’s one of those half-informed journalistic reports which quote people out of context (or include dumb statements) and end up making the situation more confusing than ever. That quote could be interpreted to mean that fixed stars don’t hold astrological significance in western astrology, which of course, [they do], although not all modern astrologers refer to them. What Brezsny appears to mean is that the western zodiac is fixed to the equinoxes and solstices, not the position of the fixed stars or constellations, which is why precession causes the 26,000 year cycle of separation and return between the zodiacal constellations and the zodiac signs. In fact, there will probably never be a return, because it is seasonal/calendrical requirements which necessitates that there can only be 12 signs of the zodiac. Calendrical principles are firmly reliant upon the mathematics of astronomical cycles, since astronomical reality dictates that the Sun completes the zodiac in 1 year, that there are on average 12 lunations (ie, moons/months - associated with signs) within this annual (L: circular) event, which then creates an average of 30 degrees (days) within each of those 12 divisions. So the 12-sign zodiac is theoretically here to stay, just as the 12-month calendar is not easily tampered with although different cultures initiate it at different times. But there is no reason why the visible constellation boundaries need to remain static – their boundaries and numbers have changed several times over the course of history, and who knows how many more times they will change again in the next 22,000 years ? If the zodiac is even remembered when it returns, it probably won't recognise any of the constellations it meets up with :)

BTW, I thought your constructed content for the Ophiuchus page was excellent and don’t understand why those subsequent changes were made. From how I see it, they went against consensus. I’ve just made a post to that effect on the talk-page there. I have too much going on to give that page a great deal of focus right now, but I have made the suggestion that yours and Jc3s5h’s suggested content should be reinstated. It was good content. Why subsequent editors just delete good content without collaborating with other editors first, as if there is some policy requirement for miniscule coverage of points in need of explanation, is beyond me :)

Research

There are two references supporting the claim that "Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally defined outcomes." The first to the Carlson test is appropriate. The second goes to an article on a website: http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defense The article refers to several tests including Carlson but none are referenced or linked to the original Journal, book or publication etc. Some go to Sun sign tests which are not appropriate here, but if they are found to be acceptable they should be included in the Sun Sign Astrology Page - a page much in need of citation and editing. On this Astrology page, I cannot see any reason why this link is used in this context. If an editor can find a test to support the claim, could they supply details here for discussion. Robert Currey talk 12:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to start a new section on Astrology and Science because I believe the corresponding section in the article is much too long. Why pay so much attention to whether astrology is a science? For all I know, most astrologers couldn't care less and most of the general public couldn't care less. It is an important subject but not so important as to overtake the article. I think the content here should be significantly pruned and moved to a new article, where the topic can be properly examined. Now, about your point: I believe that the statement is accurate so we only need to provide proper references. Perhaps the best would be to use Dean's monumental book on research, which contains numerous such examples. Petersburg (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Such an article would probably constitute a POV fork, and as such would be discouraged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Petersburg, Astrology and Science is a controversial issue and deserves coverage in Wikipedia. Some people care passionately about this issue and much has been written about it. Some of the writing is poorly sourced and reasoned on both sides of the controversy, but some of it is well sourced and written. Wikipedia provides at least guidelines for verifiability and this can help to present a NPOV to readers. For NPOV, both sides should be represented, especially when there is a well-documented historical discourse driving the exchange of views. This might be one reason why readers turn to the Wikipedia astrology article in the first place.

Robert Currey, The Fraknoi article is famous and I'm sure readers will expect to see a reference to it, whether or not it meets WP guidelines for verifiability. This represents a conflict that goes beyond my WP knowledge. There is a good response to each of Fraknoi's points by scientist/astrologer Bob Marks. However, this might be a case of one less than ideal posting versus another less than ideal posting. Thanks for bringing this up because this will probably require some discussion to determine what to do.

With regard to the Carlson experiment, that study has been criticized as being seriously flawed, and even that it actually shows that the astrologers performed significantly better than chance. Professor Suitbert Ertel published a paper on this, and in fact I've published a peer reviewed paper on it myself. It is of great interest to me. Of course I am aware that you, Robert, have also written on this subject. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I don't see how this would be a POV fork as long as both sides are represented in a NPOV. Can you explain? Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, could you please explain why a separate article on a section in the main article would be considered a POV fork? And by whom? This is what is being done on all articles as far as I can see. Is jamming everything into a single article the preferred method on WP? Not in my experience. In my view, core principles, techniques, history and cultural effects are way more important topics than whether astrology is a science. Yet the latter takes up almost as much space as the former combined. Do we not have to strive for proper proportion and balance in each article? Petersburg (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken McRitchie, While the topic may be important to some people, my point is that it shouldn't take up as much space within the main article. If there is much to write about and hard to do justice to such a topic here, it should be discussed in a separate article and a summary of it given here. Petersburg (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I understand and agree with you. IMO it should be a separate article reflected in a summary on the main astrology page. Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Some guidelines for splitting articles are here: WP:SPLITTING. With the current size of the article around 58kB it is not yet at the size where the need for a split becomes high.
As for POV fork problem, read this WP:CONTENTFORKING. AndyTheGrump is right, splitting off "Astrology and science" into a separate article would be a POV fork because on a topic of pseudoscience the POV from science has to be included in the article to keep NPOV.
How many people care or don't care about an "astrology and science" section is not a criterium for editing on WP.
If any section in the article needs to be shortened, then it is probably the "History" section because there is a separate article about History of astrology already. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether the article should be split can be decided later. Right now this is red herring that is distracting from Robert's original point about references for the statement: "Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally defined outcomes." If this statement cannot be supported by reliable sources that meet WP:V requirements, it should be removed. The Fraknoi "educational" article is not reliable. The Carlson experiment is only one experiment, is questionable, and does not constitute "repeated" failure. Can some verifiable support be found for this claim or do we have to either reword it or remove it? Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to move ahead with this action because there are other questionable claims made in the Research section. We can tackle them one by one. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Before considering any proposal to create an Astrology and Science page, could we first review the present section on the main article? In particular I need citation to support the claim. I am not suggesting removing all the links to Fraknoi and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific from the whole page; there are two other footnotes and direct links. Dean's 'Recent Advances', for all its apparent data, is devoid of suitable studies other than Vernon Clark and Gauquelin which support astrology. I have been in communication with Dean in recent years and he has not been able to provide a valid test that supports this claim other than Carlson. I suggest that we remove the present citation but leave it a couple of days for a replacement to be found before considering the claim. Robert Currey talk 22:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that an editor has changed the statement "Studies published in skeptical publications have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally defined outcomes." Have I missed something? Has this been discussed? Could whoever did it, please undo it and if they still feel it is justified, could they explain their reasoning? Robert Currey talk 22:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this, agree with you and have undone the edit. Petersburg (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Petersburg, it was a mistake. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Currey, Dean's Recent Advances should provide ample evidence for supporting the statement. Petersburg (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

RA should, but it doesn't. Check your copy (I assume you have one) and cite a test. Most tests are flawed with artefacts or anecdotal or unpublished or the sample size is so small that you cannot rule out chance. Dean started his own test with unaspected planets, but 30 years later it is still in compilation. His Time-Twin test is still awaiting completion and publication. Carlson and Gauquelin with replications by Ertel & Irving 1996, Muller & Menzer 1986 & Timm & Köberl 1986, are exceptions with a viable sample size (N>=100). Robert Currey talk 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In the Research section, I have moved the sentence about the research of Professor Richard Tarnas out of the middle of the Gauquelin paragraph and into a new paragraph and added a reference to his book 'Cosmos & Psyche'. I think the comments on Tarnas could be improved to show how his qualitative research into historical events and the lives of famous people in relation to archetypal themes is different to the quantitative statistical studies of Gauquelin. Does anyone have suggestions on this? Robert Currey talk 23:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dean's Recent Advances, Controlled Sun-sign studies (p.84). On subsequent pages, two studies are described: Silverman and Opinion Research Center. Both failed to show significant correlation. There will be more. Petersburg (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Petersburg, I commented on Sun Sign tests in the first paragraph of this section. Bedsides being inappropriate here, there are huge problems with Sun Sign tests - especially with compatibility where 1 in 7 matches are incorrect unless the time of birth is included. Also, most professional astrologers base compatibility on Venus, Mars and the Moon rather than the Sun sign. There are more recent studies which show statistically significant correlations with couples of the same sun sign which could be evidence based on Venus matches or could be explained by artifacts. If the statement is to be supported in any way, we need solid tests of astrology or astrological practice rather than what are arguably straw man examples. Robert Currey talk 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Sun-sign astrology is just as part of astrology as any other component of astrology. It can be noted that sun-sign tests are not the best ones can come up with when trying to find evidence in support of or against astrology but they cannot be ignored. It is not possible to fully test astrology with current tools and resources. Until such time, these and other incomplete and weak tests will have to be mentioned. Petersburg (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have requested a citation for the claim "Gauquelin's research has not received mainstream scientific notice." Gauquelin's research is well known, having been described and cited in hundreds of books and publications. H.J. Eysenck, the publisher of the major psychology journal Personality and Individual Differences first brought it into mainstream notice through his early commentaries. This unreferenced claim should be reworded or removed from Wikipedia. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree a citation is needed, but at the same time, I don't think that Gauquelin's research has been covered in 'hundreds' of SCIENTIFIC books and publications, if that is what you meant.Paul Quigley (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Research updated

I've updated the Research section to include types of research, methods, major researchers, and important results. I'm exhausted by this effort, and I'm not finished yet, but I need to put it out there so others can participate. Ken McRitchie (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ken - I think you have written an excellent updated outline of Research. It is long, but I don't think it can be reduced without losing important points. I, and I imagine others will have many thoughts and suggestions on what has to be seen as a work in progress. Here are a few to start:

• I don't believe that astrology has been subject of considerable research - certainly when compared to scientific fields and consider that there has been a serious lack of research especially by astrologers. I suggest taking the word considerable out here.
• I think the data: the P (probability) and ES (Effect Size) values in the Carlson test - last para - should be in the footnotes and should specify to which test they refer: the ranking of 3 psychological profiles as matches to each chart and the rating of each chart match to 3 profiles out of 10.
• The number of participants in the Carlson test should be listed - namely up to 28 astrologers and up to 116 subjects. If you are happy, I can put in the numbers tomorrow with explanatory references.
• The sentence "Following this experiment, Carlson declared a scientific victory against astrology and his study was published in the prestigious science journal Nature in 1985." is too unspecific and 'unscientific'. I suggest "When Carlson's study was published in Nature in 1985, his conclusion was that that natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers was no better than chance." (p.425 Carlson, Nature)
• Rather than the words "... normal social science .." I suggest "... the conventions of social science"
• I am not sure if 'skewed' is the right terminology here, but I am not sure of a replacement. Robert Currey talk 01:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am making minor mods to this now. Question: in the quote "And as for the Judicial Astrology, that pretends to foretel what is to come...", is 'foretell' spelled with a single L? If so, '(sic)' needs to be added; if not, it should be corrected. Aquirata (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Currey, I have no objections to your suggestions. My reference to "normal social science" alludes to Thomas Kuhn, who has been influence for me, but that's just the way I think so maybe you're right. Aquirata, I think you're looking at the section before the one I changed. This might be an early spelling, I don't know. I'd leave it alone for now. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Made a number of fairly minor changes. Please take a look at the article. Didn't want to take ten times longer to debate these here, and I'm not attached to any of them, so go ahead and accept or revert my changes. Aquirata (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I think 'considerable' can be supported. Have replaced 'normal social science' with 'standard practices of the social sciences' (wasn't aware of your suggestion). How do you like this phrasing?. Agree with the rest of your comments. Aquirata (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken, great work - I can see you have put a huge amount of work and painstaking effort into this. Some of the points are beyond what I can contribute towards myself, but for the sake of the general reader I wonder if there could be a clearer explanation of what is meant by this comment:

"More detailed analysis by using ranking methods suggests that the eminence effects, which at first were thought to be linear correlations, actually have curvilinear shapes".

Could you create a very simple, layman's explanation of what that means, in a comment brief enough to be included as a footnote? Zac Δ talk 03:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC) [Moved comment to correct place Zac Δ talk 03:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)]

Aquirata, it's a long section (there's so much good interesting literature on this), and subheadings are a good idea. Carlson's study was criticized by the referenced sources as being biased against the astrologers, so it's better to say so instead of "skewed," which normally is used to describe results, but bias is no trivial matter so I don't think "only" is appropriate and removed it. Zac , the reference to the further studies that found "curvilinear shapes" comes from a fascinating research article. I thought it would help to visualize the analysis, which is plotted as a best fit slope. Judging by your response and someone else I asked (not a Wikipedian) it now seems a bit too technical for this article, so I removed the sentence. The same interesting article is referenced in another part of the this section. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed "without any apparent reason" back to "without giving reasons." The researchers were obliged to give reasons for not using ranking methods after it had been so clearly and dramatically demonstrated, but they failed to do so. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed the sub-heading "Historical overview" to "Methods." The history of this research would need to go back at least to Jonathan Dee and probably much much earlier. I don't know why Suitbert Ertel doesn't have a Wikipedia page. I looked at the German Wikipedia and his name is in red in articles there too because he doesn't have an article. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You have done so much work on this; I am very impressed. It sound's like you think there could be even more to add - I'm wondering if you are planning to develop this into a stand-alone article? I am strongly of the opinion that should happen, and that we retain a summary of that article here, which should remain full enough to be informative and interesting, but not quite so long as it is now. We don't want silly fragmented bits of information like we currently have in the history sections, that are too brief to be of value to anyone (I'm hoping to do more work on that soon, but will be looking at the spin-off articles first). I've noticed a couple of minor edits that I'll go ahead and make - folks can change them back if they want. But I am going to ask you to look at this comment because I'm not sure about it:

"These methods have been largely incorporated from the social sciences..."

Does incorporated from make sense? Things are usually incorporated into aren't they? Probably best for you to consider that because my instinct would be to say "drawn from" but that might not capture exactly what you intend. Regards, Zac Δ talk 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thought - when we are a little further down the line, we could consider placing the content that precedes 'research' into the Criticisms section, since that could do with development and it would be well placed there. Just a thought to be considered if everyone agrees.

For the record above comment is unsigned and 'not by me'. Robert Currey talk 21:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot should take care of it. Aquirata (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I edited Carlson's conclusion as proposed above and tried to add Eysenck's response "The conclusion does not follow the data" in Astro-Psychological Problems, Vol.4 Jan 1986 to the ref but it did not appear. I think the Eysenck quote is important given the psychologist's status. Robert Currey talk 15:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Aquirata, I'm not sure the statement: "limited experience in applying the scientific method" really really describes what is happening in astrology. Is there a reference for it? Most astrologers are practitioners and do not do research. This is not unusual in other professions, such as medicine. Some astrologers who do research have done statistical analysis and there are even large databases available to help this effort. These astrologers know the basics and can get help if they think they've found something. Judith Hill comes to mind. There are a lot of case studies, but that is not exactly what we think of as scientific method. Case studies are done because they provide a lot of insight. Research in cosmic cybernetics is a special case because it ignores the rules of both astrology and science. In its most sophisticated form it uses computer modeling. It is basically an exploration of any sort of harmonic that fits a set of data. It also includes fitting and adjusting the planetary harmonics to trends, like economic cycles and indexes. It seems like a sort of Frankenstein solution, but it works. Richard Schultz has been very successful with his TAO Oscillator. Quite a few astrologers have taken this approach and it is probably the most active area of astrological research today. Yet this is more like engineering than science. I would say that astrologers have not limited themselves to scientific goals and methods. So I think this statement, as it is now, is too sweeping and suggests an obstacle where astrologers don't see one. Ken McRitchie (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I was trying to convey that the majority of astrologers have experience with case studies and not statistical research methods that would be required for scientific proof. No doubt there are astrologers out there trying various methodologies, but to the bulk of astrologers there is an obstacle here. Do you have a better wording? Aquirata (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. It's not scientific method that is the real issue here but inclusion in the scientific community. I've added this with the WP link for it. Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mechanisms

The Mechanisms sub-section contains the statement: "To some observers, non-mechanistic concepts raise serious questions about the feasibility of validating astrology through scientific testing." The way it stands now, this statement is sourced to an astrologer (Michael Harding). Whether this is true, it would be better to have such a statement sourced to a scientific skeptic. Without this sort of opposition, the whole argument about mechanisms seems to fall apart, with only astrologers debating amongst themselves. Does someone have a good source? Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Another statement in this same sub-section, referring to cosmic cybernetics, states: "A minority of astrologers believe that astrology is amenable to scientific investigation, given sufficiently sophisticated analytical methods, and cite pilot studies to support this view." While cosmic cybernetics should be described and properly sourced, it should not be presented as if it is the only method of scientific investigation, especially in view of the research already presented. If this statement is intended to refer to a mechanism it should be clarified or else removed from this section. Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this Ken. If we are looking at the old content then we need to have discussion before anything is removed to make sure we don't take out pivotal comments that could start a controversy. My own view is that the science section is getting too long and some of those sub-sections need to go. It's time to start thinking seriously about spinning off the full details into a separate article and keeping the focus here on only what is most significant and noteworthy. I'm not sure this sub-section is one to cling to. If it stays then the points need to be made more clearly using a simpler approach. It's too wordy and making the reader do a lot of work just to get a little bit of not too valuable information.

For example, the first paragraph currently reads:

Astrologers have not presented consistent explanations of physical mechanisms that would explain astrology,[112][115][116] and few modern astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms in the classical sense between planets and people.[107] Researchers have posited acausal, purely correlative, relationships between astrological observations and events, such as the theory of synchronicity proposed by Carl Jung, which draws from the ancient Hermetic principle of 'as above, so below' to postulate meaningful significance in unrelated events that occur simultaneously.[117][118] Others have posited a basis in divination.[119] Other astrologers have argued that empirical correlations stand on their own epistemologically, and do not need the support of any theory or mechanism.[108]

Instead, how about:

Astrologers have presented various explanations of how astrology works. Some suggest purely correlative relationships between observations and events, such as the theory of synchronicity proposed by Carl Jung.[ref] Some, a basis in divination.[119] Others, that empirical correlations stand on their own epistemologically [wot ???], and do not rely on the need for a known 'mechanism'.[108]

Or something similar - you get my drift? Let's try to turn this mass of clever words and references into something that explains what the general WP reader wants to know in a language they will understand.

So before we waste time finding refs for naff comments, let's consider what should be said, and if changes are necessary, let's be bold (but discuss first) :).

New post starts here after previous unsigned post.

OK - here is a rough outline as to how I think the mechanisms should be listed but without any supportive detail.

While there are known mechanisms for astrology, the mechanism for almost all the astrology as practiced by astrologers is not known. It is subject to debate among astrologers and one of the main objections to astrology by scientists. There are four main theories:

1. Astrology operates by an unknowable, divine, supernatural force that cannot be quantified, astrologers practice divination and this process cannot be subject to scientific tests.
2. A causal mechanism based on the ‘influence of the planets’. This applies to Natural Astrology such as terrestrial tides, seismic and tectonic activity, the weather and nature (e.g. coral and the moon phases) and the work of Dr Percy Seymour and others on sun spots and solar and other planetary tides.
3. An acausal relationship such as Jung/Pauli’s synchronicity which traces back to the hermetic maxim (as above, so below), correspondences, archetypes and Aristotle’s formal causation. (It could be described by quantum entanglement but this would be OR).
4. An artificial creative or co-creative process. Astrology is a projection of the human mind onto celestial patterns and cycles. This would be the view of many sceptics who see the projection as arbitrary and meaningless or faulty attempts to explain phenomena. Some anthropologists, psychologists and historians see these myths as a powerful reflection of the fundamentals in human nature. Some psychologists see it as a model (e.g. Myers Briggs) for use in psychological practice but without correlations or a mechanism. For many psychological astrologers, the archetypes are projected onto the heavens and astrological practice is an inseparable co-creative process that involves the astrologer, the client and the cosmos, which cannot be tested or measured objectively.

I think most astrologers believe that since astrology is a huge and diverse field, all 4 mechanisms apply in different contexts and there is evidence that Jung was open to all four theories. Point 4 could be separated into two. Robert Currey talk 11:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert, These points seem familiar and I think you've summarized the differing views out there. We need to find the references. The start of of the mechanisms section, however, should reflect the greatest polemic on this issue. When you google astrology mechanism you get page after page of Carl Sagan's response to the "Objections to Astrology" Humanist article and practically nothing else. The Humanist article is what ignited the debate, so it and Sagan should go first. This will also mean that that issue will be removed from the Astrology and Science lede and placed here under Mechanisms. Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Humanist article

The source page to the Humanist article (referenced under Astrology and science at In 1975, the American Humanist Association characterized those who have faith in astrology as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary" as "Objections to Astrology: A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists". The Humanist, September/October 1975) is missing. I will look for a suitable replacement. Aquirata (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The objections by 186 scientists was an historic event and should be included here. I wonder why they have dropped it? Robert Currey talk 08:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No idea, Robert. I did find two other sources for it: www.fisadbase.altervist​a.org/cialtrones.pdf and web.archive.org/web​/20090318140638/http://www​.americanhumanist.org/abou​t/astrology.html. The first one includes commentary by Feyerabend and the second one is a replica on the Wayback Machine (Internet archive). I think we should include both references in addition to the original one with a note that the original is not available currently (or any longer?). As an astrologer, would you be in a position to ask the Humanist why they have removed the page? Aquirata (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Astrology and Science lede states, "Sagan stated that he would instead have been willing to sign a statement describing and refuting the principal tenets of astrological belief, which he believed would have been more persuasive and would have produced less controversy than the circulated statement." Though I don't have the referenced book, Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (1997) I found a lengthy excerpt where he explains his position, and it does not mention "refuting the principle tenants of astrological beliefs." Unless anyone can provide a more recent source that says otherwise, I am going to remove this part of the statement, as it appears to be unsupported. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the statement through Google Books - The Demon-Haunted World. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Astrology & Culture - J K Rowling et al

Unless anyone has objections, I intend to include J K Rowling in the literature paragraph in the Effects on World Culture section with references to a horoscope she drew up at the time she was writing the first Harry Potter novel in the mid 90s. [3] [4] [5] I also intend to add Margaret Mitchell author of Gone with the Wind [6] [7]

Also Dawkins favourite poet: W B Yeats, plus poets Ted Hughes, Louis MacNeice and Jazz musician John Coltrane could be included, but I leave that to other editors. Robert Currey talk 10:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No objections - sounds like a perfect contribution to the Effects on World Culture section, and we are in need of good coverage of the influence of astrology on the arts, so that the scientific coverage doesn't create an imbalance. Zac Δ talk 11:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose adding the following to the section:

"Notes from Margaret Mitchell’s library revealed that the author had based each character from her classic prize-winning novel, Gone with Wind (1936) including the central star-crossed lovers, Scarlett (Aries) and Rhett (Leo), around an archetype of the zodiac."

Then use supportive links from Neil Spencer in the Guardian[8], and a more detailed article [9]. Robert Currey talk 17:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now added this item. I am not familiar with the citation format used on this page, so if anyone wants consistency, please could they tidy up my citation. Robert Currey talk 04:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The reference seems fine Robert. As we get close to considering each section overhauled, I'll work through each one to make sure the references are consistent in style - unless someone else want to do that. Zac Δ talk 09:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Some general points

Out of interest (because I was on the page), I did a word count for Planet which has been a featured article. Excluding refs it was 9000 words. This one is currently 5000 words. So I'm less concerned now about how we will 'fit everything in'. I think the primary concern is to make sure the content is reliable, relevant, clear in its explanations, and makes an interesting read.

Also, I recently noticed that the daily featured articles don't usually have references in the lede. I checked this point recently with an administrator, who confirmed this and made some interesting observations on this page (from an independent viewpoint) which are worth reading in full here. What he said of this lede is of particular interest:

"Although the lede is only four paragraphs (complying with MOS guidelines), I think it is too long and contains too much detailed information that could be added further down. The value of the lede, apart from summing-up all that goes below, is that it excites people's interest in reading the rest of the article. I read the Astrology lede and my eyes glazed over - I needed two or three goes to begin to get to grips with it, which doesn't help the article for the average or uninitiated reader. If I took a free hand to copyedit this lede I would put and develop the sentence "According to Gallup opinion polls..." somewhere else as it is a detailed development of the broad point in the previous sentence, and I would put and develop the sentence "Astrology cannot be classified as science because..." into the "Criticism" section for the same reason. I would then try to compact the rest a little if possible for a more succinct and digestible read." Zac Δ talk 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I explained that the lede is best left referenced until the rest of the article is sorted out, and that it's not worth developing a whole new discussion on the lede again just yet, but I hope no one minds that I'll enact these specific suggestions. I do agree and I think we have to ensure that 'readability' is a high priority as we develop new content. Zac Δ talk 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes which should improve the situation for now. I've left references for all points that have yet to be developed. The criticisms section can be developed now with a few of the significant themes in place.

I would like to suggest asking the copy-editor quoted above if he would take another look at the lede and tell us if this is better. Would everyone be OK with that? (it would mean leaving the lede as it currently is for a few days to give him chance to look at it). Zac Δ talk 02:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zac - Administrator?!!! - I wish :) Just a lowly editor who wishes to see articles written with good sources, NPOV and clarity, regardless of the subject. Thanks for forwarding this message. What is in the new lede is much sharper. As determinism is blue-linked, so too could disposition, to define both positions, if the disposition article says what is wanted. In "is no direct 'influence' from the stars" I don't think that influence needs to be stressed (influence is influence), but 'stars' maybe, as it's a colloquialism for the whole subject. Does "(only a synchronistic correlation between the celestial and terrestrial)" more or less imply "disposition" anyway ? - if not it shows I can't understand, as an uninitiated reader, what is said - I think it doesn't need the rather opaque bracketed qualification, which can be explained further down if necessary. From my POV, the lede is reading a lot better, and is a lot more understandable for not being so cluttered. Acabashi (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Very useful feedback Acabashi, thanks. Sorry for calling you an administrator - don't know why I did that; I don't think I was thinking that even at the time I wrote the word.

I've made all those changes but I'm going to ask other editors to help with the edit of the sentence in the last paragraph which currently says:

"Astrologers have long debated the degree of determinism in astrology. Some believe celestial movements control fate, others that they determine only disposition. Whilst most astrologers contend there is no direct influence from the stars (only a synchronistic correlation between the celestial and terrestrial) astrology has been criticized for not offering a clear account of its physical mechanism and failing to develop new theories in line with modern scientific principles.[5] It has thus been called a pseudoscientific subject by members of the modern scientific community.[6]"

This has already had an attempt at simplification and I don't think it's possible to just omit it without some revisision to the text around it. But as someone who use to look at words like this and wonder what they meant myself, I agree, we shouldn't use a term like 'synchronistic correlation' before explaining what it means.

Perhaps Ken, you will have a suggestion about this? The aim of the last paragraph is to highlight that astrology is not free of controversy, does suffer from lack of clarity about its theoretical basis, and is no longer an approved part of science.

Or we could leave this for now; but remain wary that it's a point to come back to and fix later.

Acabashi, would you be willing to read through the section on 'Etymology and basci definitions' in the same way - that is not expected to have many more changes and your non-astrology eyes will be ussful for picking up where we have slipped into astro-speak without realising that the reader may not share the language. Would be very good if you could. Thanks -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for the history section

The history section needs a complete rethink. The present content and subheading structure is so poor that it is hardly worth the effort of trying to substantiate it. I am going to try to work on this section whilst simultaneously working on the spin-off articles it gives reference to.

Astrology has a vast history so it is going to be difficult to keep this as brief as it needs to be whilst not making the overview so brief that salient points cannot be made.

Rather than the 6 subsections we currently have - 1) Traditions, 2) Horoscopic astrology, 3) Origins, 4) Before the modern era, 5) Contemporary changes 6) Notable personalities - I propose:

1. Astrology in the ancient world
2. Hellenistic astrology
3. Byzantine and early medieval Islamic astrology
4. Astrology in medieval Europe
5. The Renaissance and Enlightenment
6. Astology in the modern era

These six headings should allow us to cover all the relevant issues within the six headings currently on the page, and also allow explanation of issues concerning the periods of decline. As the content is put together it will entail some flux and shifting. Bits may be longer than they ought to be at first, and can be cut down as the content is pulled together. For the time being I will comment out, rather than remove current content so that it can be easily restored if needs be. Is this OK? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed revision to Etymology section & new 'Notes' section

I've spent the last few days putting some text together that I would like to propose for the Etymology section.

Because this will entail a major addition/change, I developed the section in my sandbox so that you can view it before I upload it into mainspace. The link is here:

If anyone has any objections to anything feel free to tell me here or edit the text in my sandbox with your suggestions. Please tell me if you do not want me to upload. Otherwise, it there are no significant objections I'll add the text to the main article in a couple of days and then it can be edited and discussed, as usual.

Some points you might want to note -

* I am suggesting renaming this Etymology and basic definitions

* As you will see, I am proposing to add an Additional notes section at the end of the article, before the references section. I have noticed that quite a few of the daily featured articles do this. The first note I have in there currently will probably not stay as a note long-term. It concerns the decline of astrology at the end of the 17th century when astrology lost its standing, and this is something I believe should be developed a little within the main article. However, the 'Additional notes' section should prove very handy for various points that are crrently within the main article, that could be shifted downwards as supplimentary material that doesn't need to be prominent, but doesn't deserve to be cut altogether. Hence, something everyone can be thinking about - if you want me to add that straight away, let me know and I will.Zac Δ talk 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added some suggestions on the Talk page of this sandbox User_talk:Zachariel/sandbox. Ken McRitchie (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Zac for this proposed replacement. It's definitely an improvement. My initial thought was that it could be reduced slightly - maybe less detail on the Mesopotamian planets (which should be on the Babylonian Astrology page -even if some of the names are Sumerian) and the wandering stars could be consolidated into one sentence. The word planet is based on the Greek verb πλανάω 'to wander/stray' and was introduced by the ancient Greeks as a descriptive reference to how these notable stars were observed to wander through the other stars which remained static in their relationship to each other. The Greeks employed the term ἀστέρες πλανῆται asteres planetai, ‘wandering stars’[9] to describe 'the wanderers' amongst the mass of ἀστέρες ἀπλανεῖς asteres aplaneis ‘fixed stars’, which lacked this observable motion.

However, IMO there should be some mention of the astrological status of Pluto after the IAU ruling. I think the notes are a good idea - though the comments here have to be subject to the same need for verification as elsewhere. Robert Currey talk 08:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

::: Update - I've made a number of amendments following Ken's comments. As I viewed the note about the decline as a temporary feature anyway, which needs elaboration, I've taken all of that out. No need to get into that one here. I've also drastically reduced the Babylonian comments and reduced the wandering stars discussion (although I see that as quite pivotal). I did this before reading your comments Robert but I think the amendments have covered all the points you raised. Would be very grateful if you would take another look to see whether it now meets with your approval. Zac Δ talk 13:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, the latest version, with revisions, looks good to me.Paul Quigley (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of loosely editing your sandbox, which I hope is ok. I haven't checked the notes. These are only suggestions - so revert at will. I think the distinction between astronomy/astrology and stars/planets needs to be clarified, but I believe it should not take much space. Robert Currey talk 14:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I suggest everyone scribble out or edit to have it as they would personally prefer it. I'll revert each one to clear the board back to how I would have it. Early next week I'll do another edit to recognise the consensus of opinion. Thanks Zac Δ talk 14:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else would like to see my proposed edits see hereRobert Currey talk 15:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there have been three sets of feedback now that which will eliminate the signicant problems, so I'll work on Robert's suggestions and upload to mainspace. It's likely that we'll have to work over everything as the various sections get filled, so we may as well have the remaining discussions concerning this section on this talk page.

Robert you asked "what about Pluto?" in regard to the planet-standing. I've covered this in the accompanying note.

Ken, you don't like the explanation of how planetary definition has changed but the IAU definition is not what astrologers use. I think it is essential to keep that point in, as explained on the sandbox discussion, (and Robert's question). We need to cover that and I believe I have done it as objectively as possible. I made a lot of other edits in response to your comments. If you want to suggest an alternate way to cover it please do. Zac Δ talk 16:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK - this edited version is IMO good and believe that Pliny adds colour to the article and his quote is very relevant.

Some more suggestions:

• I believe twined should be twinned.
• It is therefore conventional for astrology texts to refer to ten planets, which does not include the Earth to which astrological reference is made. There is a slight ambiguity here as it reads as if astrological reference is made to the Earth and suggest that to which astrological reference is made. can be dropped.
• Though Pluto is covered in the Note, I think this debate is important enough to be mentioned briefly in the body with an explanation in the note.
• The wording implies but does not state that the IAU defined the Sun and the Moon as not being planets in 2006, though I assume this occurred at least a century ago.

These are just suggestions - with or without them, I am happy for this edit. Robert Currey talk 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I got distracted into something else so I haven't made the change yet. I'll look at these and factor them in. The only one I think I'll struggle with is the reference to Pluto in the main text, which seems to be a bit of a tangent to that section, which is why I put it into the note. I have no problem with the principle of what you suggest - just running dry of ideas how to phrase it. I'll try to come up with something - if not, you add what you think needs to be added.

I changed twinned to twined after your edit, because you underlined one of the n's. I thought it looked odd (should have spell checked)! I'll change it back :) Zac Δ talk 18:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done the best I can to incorporate all views. I realise all content is subject to change and the we need to reappraise all section content when we pull the whole thing together. What I would like to do for this section now is ask an uninvolved but experienced WP copy-editor to run over it for readability purposes (to point out things like, is it relevant,interesting or dreary, inconsistent? etc). So if anyone wants to propose further changes can we do that before I ask for a pair of independent (non-astrology) eyes, please. Zac Δ talk 20:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I think it's a definite improvement and I can see you tried to consider all the views. Thanks for tackling this difficult section. I think it reads well. Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback Ken. I've asked an experienced WP copy-editor if he can cast his eyes over, to check readibility in the eyes of someone not knowledgeable in the subject. Hoping he'll find time and oblige. I need to take a bit of a break myself, but would like to start working on getting the Core principles section together soon. Zac Δ talk 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Core principles is pretty good now. Maybe you meant the Criticism section? Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No I did mean Core principles. It needs some more development. Currently it is only covering the 'as above/below' and 'stars do not compel' points; which is nicely done, but there a little more to be said about the core principles of astrology than that. But it will take a while for me to do this, because I have to catch up with some off-wiki work first. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the place to ask about the reference to Partridge's Origins which I originally added some days ago (reference 9). This has been amended to: Partridge, Eric, 1960. Origins: a short etymological dictionary of modern English (2nd edition). New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ISBN 0674993640. But the edition I consulted is more recent and the publisher is Routledge and Kegan Paul in London (RKP was never a US firm so the New York imprint is a piggyback off the London ed.) I think it should be: Partridge, Eric, 1961. Origins: a short etymological dictionary of modern English (3rd edition). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. I apologise if I gave the wrong information previously, but the above is from the edition I consulted. As for the ISBN, there is none. Did they exist? Axel 04:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's stange that the second edition has an ISBN but the later 3rd edition doesn't. Since they appear to be the same format with the same number of pages wouldn't it be better to reference the edition where we can give the ISBN? The only thing that matters is whether the reader will get to the same definition by following the information given. If you think it matters I'll change it though personally, if the content is the same I would rather refrence the edition where we can give the ISBN. I'll change the location to London now though. 11:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Live and learn. I checked the history of ISBN and sure enough, the system was launched in 1972 (http://isbn-information.com/history-of-isbn.html). So there must be a way of assigning an ISBN ex post facto. My reference was done the old-fashioned way by actually having the book in hand. :) Therefore I saw no ISBN on its aging paper. I'll try to find one, although I am skeptical about the usefulness of ISBNs. Axel 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Other cultural systems of astrology

The article has a problem in that it has given information on Hindu astrology, but fails to reference other systems such as Chinese astrology.

I'm not sure what we do about this - for now I am taking the section on contemporary changes in Hindu astrology out of the History section, placing the commented text in a new section at the bottom of the page called 'Other world systems', and making clear by a header reference that this page's focus is western astrology - again giving a link to other cultural systems there. I'm not deleting any text, only commenting it in case anyone presents a different suggestion to this problem. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the main astrology page treating Western astrology only? There is a note to that effect on the top of the page. SLP 16:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarLightPiazza (talk • contribs)

That was my suggestion - but it was only a suggestion, (explained above) because I can't see how the article can do justice to all systems. However, if others disagree then let's discuss and decide how the article is going to cover the other systems, where, and to what extent. I'm actually quite easy about this - I was aware of a recent editor's criticism (not made on this talk-page) that the article is biased because it doesn't give coverage to Chinese astrology (his preferred system). But where do we draw the line - there is so much to cover as it is. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As it is called Astrology and as there is a Western Astrology page, I think this article should remain inclusive. However, since this is the English language Wikipedia, it is appropriate that the Western tradition predominates. IMO the article should also account for Hindu astrology and the Vedic astrologers in the west - especially the schools and the known shared origins. There should also be a smaller acknowledgement of other current practices, namely: Chinese and other Asiatic forms of astrology so people can follow links. I don't think 'extinct' versions like the Mayan and other 'New World' systems or Nadi Astrology should be listed at all here. My personal belief is that most of these systems have a common ancestry rather than separate evolution, but that claim would be Original Research.

Maybe the opening, header line could read "See also List of astrological traditions, types, and systems" In addition, to other cultural variations, this link takes you to lists of other schools like Huber, types like Horary and Electional and systems like Evolutionary Astrology, Kabbalistic and Cosmobiology. All of this would be far too much to accommodate on this page. Robert Currey talk 19:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I edited the disambiguation(?) at the top. Zac, are you able to restore the most relevant Hindu astrology points to Other cultural systems of astrology, please? Obviously, it will need editing by an editor with expertise in the field assuming it is not your speciality. Robert Currey talk 22:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, Robert. I'm not sure that It is appropriate to have Western astrology dominate the page just because it is in English but if that's the case it should be noted somewhere. SLP 01:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarLightPiazza (talk • contribs)

Astrological techniques and practices?

Question - do we really need a section here for 'Astrological techniques and practices' - we can't possibly cover that, and what is within this section is hardly going to be infomative for anyone. Wikipedia has two other pages that act as major introductions to technique: Western astrology and Horoscopic astrology. I think it would make much more sense to not get into matters of technique on this page, but to give simple 'see also' links to those pages, and keep this one focused on presenting an overview of what astrology is about, what it aims to do, how it has affected history and world culture, and how its veracity is debated. Can I ask for other opinions on this? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's much too much, and don't forget mapping and relocation techniques. Links would be better. I've moved the good criticism: "Skeptics have claimed that the practice of western astrologers allows them to avoid making verifiable predictions, and gives them the ability to attach significance to arbitrary and unrelated events, in a way that suits their purpose" to the Criticism section, though I'm not sure if the given reference is the best for this common assertion. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it - we can grab it from history if anyone makes a case for it, but I can't imagine that happening.

I'm also thinking that the section on astrological education would be better strimmed down to the most relevant details and then included towards the end of the 'Astrology in the modern era' section. But we can decide this later. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article has much emphasis on what astrology was (history), may or may not be (philosophy), is not (criticisms) and its impact elsewhere (effects on world culture), but nothing on what astrology is. For example, where does it mention the Ascendant or Rising Sign or that there are 12 signs of the zodiac? Somewhere such basic mechanics need to be clarified. Where will this now fit?

I feel the article is becoming too technical and too academic when it should be accessible to a wider range of readers. I plan to make some edit suggestions to reduce this imbalance.

Also, in the Effects on World Culture "Some modern thinkers, notably Carl Jung,[65] believe in astrology's descriptive powers regarding the mind without necessarily subscribing to its predictive claims." Though I am unable to see the original text and it is an interesting point, I don't see this as relevant to the section. Unless someone would like to move it elsewhere, I will take it out. Robert Currey talk 10:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert raises an important point. The frames of reference (signs, houses, and aspects) are barely touched upon. I'm not sure that "Techniques and Practices" is the best heading, but there needs to be a place to briefly describe the main working features of astrology: planets, reference frames, Ascendant and brief mention of less commonly used "extras" such as Dark Moon etc.

I'd like to cut back on some of the lengthy, historically and philosophically oriented Principles section, but I'll need to study it. It's a challenging read and even I need to re-read it to follow it. Some readers do respond well to a challenge and can be inspired by it, but I'm not sure that this is what we want for the typical audience. I have thought about adding a table of principles to the end of that section. A table can provide greater coverage though with less depth. For those who want depth, there are the sources, many of which have links to online articles.

I don't think the Jung reference belongs in Effects on World Culture. Maybe it should go into the Psychological Astrology article, if it's not already there. Ken McRitchie (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it needs more adding Ken; it needs reducing. You and I are probably best to stand aside and let other editors work on it freely. I would propose (just my own view) that the final paragraph is not talkiing about a core principle as much as an philosophical/theological statement. This could be moved from here into the theological criticisms section, because it would make a good counter point to the arguments of those who have criticised astrology for being fatalistic.

Re the coverage of techniques - I see no reason to add explanation of techniques on this page. They are not being brought up in discussions so don't need explanation. The article Western astrology is dedicated to giving explation of the techniques. Maybe a more prominent link to that? Or a very very brief outline that links to that for further information? But please, can we avoid creating a new section for this? Stylistically the article looks horrible with too many sections which have only brief content. I would prefer to reduce the coverage of the 'education' section into one paragraph giving of the most interesting details (Kepler college, Sophia, Faculty and maybe one or two others; the fact that it is a university subject in places like India) and then this could be included as a concluding point within 'Astrology in the Modern era'). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that there is a section for lengthier notes of explanation which are not pivotal to page content, but can add valuable supplimentary material. Consider the prospect of creating some brief explanation that can go in there and (again) make the reference to the page that is dedicated to the matter of technique. (Bear in mind, it will have to cover the most standard views only - otherwise it could turn into a minefield of contention and ongoing debate). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think what Robert is suggesting is a basic description of signs, houses, aspects, and planets that you'd find in any introductory text. What are they and what do they mean in very basic terms? It could be called "Basics" unless there's something better.

I agree that the Principles section needs to be cut down in length. It needs to be easy to read. The "Baconian precept" of "The stars incline, rather than compel," is actually about the principle of correlation and Bacon has stated it better and earlier than anything else I've yet seen. If correlation is not set down as a principle then there can be no justification for making or even attempting to make any astrological claims based on correlation. The same goes for all of the basic principles. All astrological claims need to be based on principles. Correlation, for example, removes the necessity for having a mechanism and makes astrology different from other disciples where a mechanism is a requirement. In other words, once it is clearly understood that astrology is about correlation, it nullifies the mechanism argument. The same sort of positioning applies to all of the principles. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - Basics sounds right for the mechanics.

Astrology and science?

The current heading "Astrology and science," which includes Research and other sub-sections, seems to suggest that astrological research and science are distinctly at odds or different. Yet the two main studies mentioned (Gauquelin and Carlson) involve experiments that used empirical scientific methods. The remnant that still exists in the Astrology and Science lede, covering the divergence of astrology and astronomy and changes in attitudes, could be moved to either the History or Criticism section. Then the Astrology and Science heading could be removed and the Research heading and other sub-headings could be promoted in heading levels. The "Mechanisms" section could stay in the Research section, but might actually go better under Criticism sections. The Criticisms section should probably be divided into sub-sections for scientific criticism and theological criticism. Any objections or suggestions? Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: the remnant that still exists in the Astrology and Science lede - I think it is better to remove this rather than shift it. It's misleading in suggesting that astrology and astronomy seperated by the time of Francis Bacon. As Paul Quigley has already pointed out (and he is right) astrology thrived in the Renaissance and the seperation didn't happen until the 17th century. But all this will be covered in the history section so there is no need for it to be repeated - that will also end the problem of the uncited asertions.

I also agree it makes sense to give subheadings for theological and scientific criticisms.

I've removed the Astrology and Science heading for the reasons given. The split with astronomy will be covered in the History section. To be correct however, Francis Bacon was not a Renaissance figure, but lived and wrote in the 17th century. Astrology did indeed decline as science developed empirical methods (and importantly, strict mathematically deterministic "laws" of certainty) during the early modern period and this should be reflected in the History section. This split occurred at a time when astrology was turning away from fatalistic determinism and law-like statements (or at least the perception as such likely arising from its texts full of worst case scenarios IMO). Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was an important figure in the English Renaissance. Robert Currey talk 11:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. It seems the English Renaissance stretched a little further than what I was thinking. Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Core principles

I am looking at the text in the core principles section and would like to expand this a little, give some more references, and present what is currently there in a style which is more explanatory for the general reader. This is what I would like to propose as an amendment to the first of the two paragraphs on the main page: (I have not included wiki-links and refs at this stage to same time, but I have emboldened what will be wiki-links, and inserted [] for all the points where I have good quality references:

One of the fundamental principles of astrology is that there is a holistic connection between the earth and the cosmos which surrounds it.[] These are not seen as essentially separate or subject to different laws, but affected by shared impulses and energy-shifts,[] so that cycles of change which occur in the heavens are reflective (not causative) of similar cycles of change on earth. This philosophy, first recognised and documented by ancient civilizations,[] finds expression in the astrological aphorism "as above, so below; as below, so above": known as the Hermetic maxim because it is part of the Emerald Tablet attributed to Hermes Trismegistus.[][16] The precept assumes symmetry between the life of the individual as a microcosm and the celestial macrocosm which operates to the same natural laws.[] Hence the natal chart presents a stylized map of the universe at the time of birth, as specifically focussed on the individual at its centre, with the Sun, Moon, and celestial bodies considered to be that individual’s personal planets or stars, which are uniquely relative to that individual alone.

Ken, I believe you contributed the original text so please let me know if you would have any problems with this amendment.

Does anyone have any objections, comments or suggestions on this?

Zac, I know this stuff, but my eyes glaze over at the first line at this proposal. What is a "holistic connection"? These connections are not "essentially separate"? There's laws? There are Impulses and energy shifts (is this physics?)? I'm lost. Principles are fundamental and require precise definitions and technical wording. As with all definitions, they are very condensed and cannot stray off or go fuzzy. You might want to look at the five principles I proposed in a peer reviewed Correlation article "Astrology and the Social Sciences: Looking inside the Black Box of Astrology Theory" starting on page 7. http://www.theoryofastrology.com/black_box/correlation24-1-mcritchie.pdf. When I drafted Core Principles here I used only two to keep it brief, but they are the most familiar and important in supporting the astrological premise. The other three can almost be derived from these two. I'm not sure how technical this WP article should be. There's a lot left unsaid in a lot of sections, but there are references to read for greater depth. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, what is it that you sense is missing? Do you feel there should be explicit mention of a holistic approach? We could add nativity as a principle. It has to do with origin and places the native at the center of the universe (the native basically is the universe in this POV). Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I think you are looking at this purely from the eyes of modern science. But we have to give a subject with a 4000-year history a comprehensive treatment and present the prose in a way that is easy for a general reader to relate to. The text above is, as I said, all solidly referenced to reliable historical sources. Since we are talking about 'core principles' those principles run deep and arise from classical philosophy as I will show by the references. Your text is brief but we have to make it engaging too, and the WP:SS states that sections in articles should each be "several good-sized paragraphs long". Hence we can't force an important section like 'Core principles' down to just a few brief comments, which is just a fraction of the size of the 'Astrology and science' section.

Yes, I do feel there should be specific mention of the word 'holistic' - maybe you have a reaction to this word because you feel it epitimises New Age thinking, but not only is this a word that a great many astrologers would expect to see mentioned, it is a core concept that goes back to ancient sources and was deeply embedded within ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian astrology. I don't think we should add more about 'nativity', because I think that point is adequately made already. I have no angles to push here so I hope you will give me your support on this because there is a lot to do, so I would really like to make this update and move on to to the next job at hand. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Core Principles section can be expanded and more principles added if it would help. I only added two just for brevity. I've identified five in my book and in my article. The principles, or precepts, must be drawn from the ancient traditions of astrology, but then again they need to be explained in a way that makes sense to modern readers because astrology has a modern practice and needs principles to stand as points of agreement in the development of concepts, discourse, practice, and research. For example, what are the implications of the ancient and seemingly obscure phrase "as above, so below"? It needs to be explained.

We must agree that principles are not just ancient folksy sayings we dig up, but are the foundation that organizes the world view. They clarify and separate astrological thought from non-astrological thought. They resolve disputes and arguments because you are either arguing astrology or you are not. That is their function. When I placed the two principles in this section, the arguments of Makesense64 and Andy, whether they realized it or not, fell apart because their challenges were not within the astrological paradigm, purview, or world view. They were making assumptions that astrology was something it is not or that astrology did not include something that it does include.

The language of the principles, whether scientific sounding or philosophical, or metaphysical doesn't matter as long as the principles are clear and understood by the audience and especially by the most challenging audience. If the principles are clearly stated they should fend off challenges, in this case reversions and impertinences. They should also resolve the root of all confusions over for example, what a "planet" is, questions over "mechanism," how the astrological ages should be measured, and all other sticky issues. These arguments need to be carefully traced back to the root if they can, to the precepts or principles, and then developed back out to the issue. It's not always easy to get everyone on board unless the principles are clear.

The principles must be very basic, more basic than most people think. For example, sometimes you will see planet properties referred to as "planetary principles." These are not principles because planetary properties are observed and inferred based on the structure and organization of underlying astrological principles.

The principles, as I have discussed them with skeptics, philosophers, and peer reviewers, should cover the astrological organization of space, time, number, origin, and pattern. They are what separate astrology from other world views, including current scientific views. This is what I can offer. It is not original research because these precepts have been developed in concert with peers that include both proponents and opponents of astrology and represent a consensus. With this said, principles, like definitions or mathematical axioms, are difficult to express clearly and concisely, and there is always room for improvement based on whatever else we can find in the sources. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken as you and I are not seeing eye to eye on this I've added the text that I've spent the last few days developing. It is all substantiated text and I've ensured that it is drawn from a variety of sources. I have incorporated the text you initiated and kept those references, and included a reference to one of your own comments. Let's see what other editors think - like everything else in the article, it is subject to revision. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, It's okay, I don't mind you taking the lead. You have sources and content that you want to put in the article. I myself don't actually know what to do at this point. I realize that the only way I could place in Wikipedia all of what I would like to see there would be to introduce it with my own name and for too many reasons that cannot be done. I hope that what I have offered above can serve as guidelines on what the principles represent, so we can keep it as clear as possible because principles are easy to muddle. I prefer an axiomatic approach. It's an ideal but it's a good direction to go. The question of principles is a huge puzzle and we may not have all the pieces or know what it should look like in the end. We just need to pick up each piece and see where it fits best. I'll look it over and edit. Sometimes two or more people working together can arrive at solutions that none of them would have thought of alone. Ken McRitchie (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The WP policy of building content on what is said in the sources (right or wrong) is a good one. We are here to report basically, what is being said, thought, and considered in the world at large - offering explanations as best we can, to show what the general view of the subject is. It's a bit awkward for authors who are subject experts when they edit in WP, because their expertise is needed, but it can't allow for them to promote their own point of view. However, this can be referenced if it is appropriate and substantiating a reliable point made in the article. Whilst there are sensitivities about editors referencing their own published work, this is not against the rules, providing no conflict of interest is taking place. In my opinion, not only is it permissable for this to happen within the right context, it should happen, so that there is clarity if that editor, as an author, has clearly expressed the point in published works. (If it is a significant one it will stay; if not it won't). I'm imagining that you've given to WP a great deal of the references to many independently published works that you have collected as part of your own work. Your contributions of references are quite outstanding in the science section. If you have published yourself on that subject in a format as reliable as the one I quoted, then it is not innapropriate to reference that work too. If you are unsure of the pertinancy, or feel that there could be any cause for someone to question a COI, probably the best thing to do is to call our attention to it and ask us to consider the appropriateness of it - in the end the editorial team takes responsibility for what appears on the page (and that will shift over time just as the page content will shift over time).-- Zac Δ ^talk! 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement is frustrating, but it can be creative and is necessary as it will force editors to check their sources and back up their arguments. The Core Principles section is currently much too detailed for this article and often in a language that is too technical. Without knowing who edited which parts, my suggestions will no doubt offend all authors and may be based on my misunderstanding.

• First two sentences starting "One of the precepts ... " could be reworded into a single sentence. (Normally I like short sentences, but I think this can be succinct) The word precept is not frequently used (not to me in the US, UK, Ireland or Aus) and could be replaced with basic or essential principle, tenet, maxim etc. We need a better connecting sentence or separate them.
• The first sentences outline what I would term anima mundi - the world soul (which includes the living universe) and here I think Plotinus is a good reference. Then we move onto the Hermetic Maxim which is related but a different concept. I don't think one can be assumed from the other, though they both appeal to the anthropomorphic principle i.e. our DNA etched into every cell is reflected in our entirety.
• Holism is an important principle of astrology and I think it goes back to Plato and certainly Jung argued that there was a co-creative process between the client, astrologer and cosmos - take one out and it fails - which makes testing impossible. Holism is why sun sign astrology is so limited when compared to the whole horoscope.
• Paragraphs 1 to 3 should be merged into one (i.e. reduced by 1/3). The content is fascinating and rigorously sourced, but it requires a lot of highly skilled editing so it doesn't get corrupted. What seems to be key is the role of Plato, Pythagoras, Ptolemy and Kepler and how a astrology taps into a universal mathematical code in the form of ratio, visual geometry (angles & shapes) and in sound. There should be a subpage for a fuller explanation of this. While breaking the Universe down to a mathematical code is a popular concept in science, I believe that the Platonic/Keplerian shapes currently have no support within or outside astrology - apart from historical interest. The sound of the planets is relevant though they are not audible in the sense that we understand sound.
• The uncited last sentence in the final para "Bacon's precept also suggests an empirical approach to astrology that led to early attempts to discover tendencies through statistical inference (see Research)" may be or may not correct, but it doesn't seem necessary and should be dropped.

Robert Currey talk 15:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of good and well reasoned points. I am going to leave the edit of that section to others. (I think that is a good policy for all content - fresh eyes should pull it into shape and identify the best points and cut out complexities). From the point of view of comment, I only have an issue with this one remark: "I believe that the Platonic/Keplerian shapes currently have no support within or outside astrology - apart from historical interest."

I'm not sure what you mean by Keperlian shapes, but the content refers to geometrical principles. These always have been, and still are a core principle of astrology - outside of astrology the metaphysics of the principle is not understood, (and in fact, within astrology it is not as well understood as it should be), but every astrologer uses the principle whenever they make a qualitative difference between a trine aspect and a square aspect (or any other). The principle goes on through Kepler of course. Charles Carter wrote about it and so did many other important names (not sure how many references we need)). If we are talking about core principles, then the view that qualities are expressed through material shape and form has got to be one of the most, if not the most, important; both then - and now, IMO. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I take it that the Platonic/Kepler solids are the 3D version of the aspect angles - so a trine forms a three sided pyramid (tetrahedron) and a square forms a cube? I will try to see if I can edit (and try to condense) paras 2 - 4 and remain faithful to the original text. I may put it in a sandbox before posting. Robert Currey talk 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not quite the same but they have the same associations so the principle is along those lines. Sandbox is a good idea. (Also, I uncommented the Hindu text. Cheers -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished a copy-edit of the Core Principles section based on the sandbox suggestions of Robert Currey and Ken McRitchie and my own considerations. This is not to say that it is in it's final form now, but we are getting there. (It might be a good idea for all of us to detach our minds from this section for a while and then return to it later when we can look at it again in an objective assesment of how it compliments the overall structure and information path of the page). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - nothing is ever in final form on Wikipedia - which is why so many Encylopediae Britannica are being pulped. There is some good material here and I have learnt much from my part in researching and checking it. However, I have criticisms and intend to come back to it at some time in the future. Robert Currey talk 15:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added some of this content to Musica Universalis and edited it to ensure that this sub page is in line with the main Astrology page. I have tagged some of the older material on that page as it needs citation. Robert Currey talk 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add the source info for the references there - I've just added them in. Cheers, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Robert Currey talk 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mechanisms update

I've drafted a complete update of the Mechanisms section, see my sandbox at: User:Ken_McRitchie/sandbox4. I think this is the best place to mention the "Objections to Astrology" article (though it can also be mentioned elsewhere) and Carl Sagan's comments on it. Sagan commented at length on the mechanisms claim and only made passing reference to the authoritarian tone. Feyerabend commented mainly on the authoritarian tone, but I think this aspect of Objections is of secondary interest and had far less impact to the development of modern astrology than the mechanisms issue. There is good astrological literature in response to the issues of mechanisms. Ken McRitchie (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is very good. The two points I noticed were only this:

1. The point substantiated by reference 5, which is to: G. Phillipson, Astrology in the Year Zero. Flare Publications (London, 2000) ISBN 0-9530261-9-1 - could you indicate page references or at least one of the passages in the book that covers the point?
2. The final comment reads: "A few researchers, such as astronomer Percy Seymour, have sought to describe a mechanism that could potentially explain astrology.". This left me wanting to know a little more about what this is. Could it briefly outlined? Either at this point, or in an additional note at the end, or through a very brief encapsulation of the idea in the footnote?

Other than that it's great. I see no reason not to add this straight to the page. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, these are good suggestions but I will have to rely on others to provide the information because I don't have access these particular sources. These references were developed by other editors for the existing section and I just carried them over. Details would be great. Anyone? Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the Mechanisms section from the rework in the sandbox. Redundant content that appeared in the Astrology and Science lede (Objections to Astrology and Sagan's response) has been removed from that lede. Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Re, the point with ref 5, which reads: "Few modern astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms in the classical sense between planets and people.[5]" - I have Phillipson's book but I don't think it is a point that is actually covered within that text. I wonder if this needs to refer to modern astrologers though, since it's a well established traditional principle that celestial movements are mirroring rather than causing. It is such a general astrological principle that I don't believe it is controversial and so doesn't actually need a footnote. It could just read "Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people". To use the phrase "in the classical sense" implies that this was the classical view but I don't believe it ever was. Just a thought.

I don't have the Seymour text so can't help with that one. Again, I think it is best to remove the reference if it's not clear what it is we are referencing and can't give some kind of account of it. I notice the McGillion text is available online and not too long. I quickly went through it in the hope I could summarise it but this is really outside my comfort zone. Maybe you are someone else could give a very brief summary, so that we are qualifying the point that new theories on astrology are still being developed ? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Zac, Good point about removing "modern astrologers" and "classical sense," which I've done along with the Phillipson reference, which is not necessary as you point out. What "classical" means can be confusing. Here I think it was intended to relate to "classical" gravity and electromagnetism, not anything from antiquity. Better just to remove these since they don't jibe with astrological principles in the first place. I don't have Seymour's text either, but I think it is correct that he was proposing a causal mechanism. I'd hesitate to remove this one, but it does need to be verified and some details added. Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: In Mechanisms The statement "Some astrologers have posited a basis in divination," is referenced to Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology. Is this correct? I need to ask because the quote inserted in the ref footnote says nothing about divination. Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed this and given a relevant quote from the book -- Zac Δ ^talk! 08:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! :) Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this passage again, after reading the page as a whole, I wonder if the final paragraph of that section adds anything that hasn't already been stated cleary on several occasions before:

Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people. Researchers have posited acausal, purely correlational, relationships between astrological observations and events. For example, the theory of synchronicity proposed by Carl Jung, which draws from the ancient Hermetic principle of 'as above, so below,' postulates meaningful significance in unrelated events that occur simultaneously. Some astrologers have posited a basis in divination. Others have argued that empirical correlations stand on their own, and do not need the support of any theory or mechanism. A few researchers, such as astronomer Percy Seymour, have sought to describe a mechanism that could potentially explain astrology.

As a suggestion and comment, I'd be inclined to cut that one or reduce it down significantly. The previous text reads well on its own.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Principles

Ken, I note your point about Bacon and correlation. Can you take me through how the stars incline... (freewill) is about the principle of correlation as the opposite, determinism can also manifest as correlation? Also, neither freewill nor fate has any bearing on causation. However, in terms of statistical significance there is a big difference between freewill which suggests probability/forecast (due to choice) p ≤ 0.05, while determinism suggests inevitability/prediction p=0. Robert Currey talk 22:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC) McRitchie|talk]]) 18:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: correlation: I agree this is the important principle to convey but I don't see it being dependent on a reference to Bacon. It is the microcosm-macroscosm theory which supports the principle of correlation. The comment about the stars impelling rather than compelling can be made as part of that. Also, it would be wrong to suggest that Bacon was responsible for that maxim; it was one he repeated, not originated. It was well worn before his time, quoted by Hieronymous Wolf, Richard Burton, Raleigh, Dante and Thomas Aquinas. I'm not sure Aquinas is the earliest to have used it but the earliest I can find reference to having used it. (see here and here). It's one of those sayings that has been used over and over, so that it mostly gets attributed to the 'ancient astrologers'. Aquinas says he is quoting Ptolemy when he uses it, but I think he is quoting the gist of what Ptolemy was saying in the Tetrabiblos, rather than any phrase that can be attributed to Ptolemy (so possibly Aquinas was the one who turned it into a memorable aphorism) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert, We need to be careful about the use of "mechanics" wrt astrology basics. Skeptics will swarm all over it with the old "where is the mechanism?" issue, which should not even be an issue. So for the sake of peace, stability, and potential consensus, I'd avoid it. It's not "mechanics" but "properties." Speaking of a "psychological mechanism" would be different but I don't see how it could go in this article.

Bacon does not take credit for the principle he states. "Precept" BTW wasn't my idea, but a couple of peer reviewers (anonymous to me) used it. I like it because it combines "teaching" with a suggestion of "pre-concept." This precept, or principle, tenant, maxim, or whatever you want to call it, coincided with a major shift in astrological philosophy away from the "fatal necessity" of the medieval era (although not everyone, like William Lilly, shifted) but towards empirical "inclinations" of the early modern era. That is why Bacon, the empiricist, is important. He was there when the shift happened and he remarked on it, and he's a major figure that demands a lot of respect among skeptics as long as they are attached to the idea of empiricism. We need a consensus. Associating this with Bacon has a lot of persuasive power because it resolves a cognitive dissonance. There very well were others before Bacon, such as Aquinas, but they are a matter of only slight historical interest because they weren't able to do anything significant with it. Aquinas doesn't say what the specific inclinations are, just that they must be resisted by free will against them. When Bacon, the empiricist, says the same thing, we don't assume that the inclinations are all bad; we just admit that we actually don't know until we go and look. Resurrecting Aquinas as the "originator" rather than a mere influence would give an unhistorical emphasis to the wrong place and time. This sort of unhistorical scholarship is why the "New Age" WP article has become corrupt as hell and the big picture is missed.

The stars do not compel (fate) but they incline (show tendency). Tendencies can be great or small and can increase and decrease. If you measure where the increases and decreases happen, you can zero in on something meaningful, the minima and maxima, or "eminences" in terms of the Gauquelin studies. This is how correlation works, by measuring covariances and finding where the eminences significantly match. Where the eminences match is what gives meaning or "properties" to the measurements, which are numbers. So ultimately, inclination and correlation gives meaning to numbers. Correlation is really a principle of numbers. Clear as mud now?

The stars "impel" is something different. This means the stars are not external influences directly affecting us by some causal link, but are urges that come from within us because we live in concert with the stars. This is the principle of diachronic synchronicity, which I've called "coevolution" (though I'm not attached to the label). It has to do with time, tempo, and music of the spheres. Diachronic synchronicity or coevolution can only happen because all cycles, no matter how long or short, all resemble each other developmentally. The developmental cycle (stages or phases of growth and maturity) is universal.

The microcosm-macrocosm is something different from the principle of correlation. Correlation has to do with the organization of number and microcosm-macrocosm has to do with the organization of space by reference to symmetries. So it is actually correlativity (the principle of correlative worlds).

We need to be careful about references to anima mundi (the world soul) because that concept is besieged by skeptics or psceptics. I don't think we should go looking for trouble if we don't need to. We should seek a consensus. The recognition of identities and states as properties rather than as anthropomorphic personalities or appetites was one of the distinguishing features of early modern science. The principles of Nativity (center of the whole universe) and "as above, so below" (correlative worlds defined by symmetries) are not anthropomorphic and provide a basis for a holistic worldview (or at least Nativity does). The anima mundi is an interesting cultural artifact, akin to the air god Shu bringing the universe into existence by separating his two children, Geb (earth) and Nut (sky) from their embrace. That is an ancient cosmology of genesis described in anthropomorphic terms. It is hardly recognizable as anything related to modern cosmology. We'll get a lot closer to consensus if anima mundi is regarded as an historical concept that has been updated using non-anthropomorphic terms (precepts). Ken McRitchie (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken these are big debates and not what we should be getting into on the page itself, or even in this talk-area. By following the WP principle of reporting the consensus view based on established sources we don’t need to go into intricate points – keep the content simple and focused on the uncontroversial facts. It is well-established that medieval astrology did not support the idea fatal necessity and this can be covered in the history section (you have to go back to the stoic influence of the classical era to find that, and even then it was debated passionately and Ptolemy covers the point to clarify that astrology describes predisposition). The ‘impel’ maxim was well used in the 13th century, and probably existed as a maxim long before then – remember that the theological tenets of astrology were of the greatest significance in the medieval era and it was precisely because astrology did not imply fatal necessity that astrology was protected against theological criticism and the dangers of the inquisition. (Also, Lilly did not hold a view of fatal necessity – I can only imagine your assumption of that comes from a misconception amongst some modern astrologers that horary is necessarily fatalistic, rather than being a system of forecasting and analysis which is more specific only because the context of the chart is more specific. Judicial astrology drew most of the theological criticism, but it only becomes fatalstic if the astrologer uses it in a fatalistic manner, which Lilly did not.) There were many who attached empirical study to astrology before Bacon, because most of the leading astrologers of history were also the leading astronomers of the day. To suggest the Bacon initiated a shift in that regard distorts the history of astrology before him. It would generate lengthy argument and require an in-depth discussion that can't be accomodated on this page.

It is also misleading to differentiate ‘correlation’ from the philosophy of universal harmony, by which the microcosm and macrocosm are united, and alternative in correlation with each other. Note the comment from Alkindi (9th cent.) in reference 17 of the article: “... we say that one thing acts with its elemental rays on another, but according to the exquisite truth it does not act but only the celestial harmony acts”. This is the principle that most well known astrologers/natural philosophers of earlier ages championed. It is the same principle as that for which Jung proposed the term ‘synchronicity’, after acquainting himself with Hermetic philosophies: ‘as above …and so forth’

Also, I do not feel we need to be careful about making reference to pivotal points of astrological philosophy, such as anima mundi as ‘world soul’, but that we have an obligation to present these core concepts and demonstrate that astrology was, historically, a primarily philosophical and metaphysical study. It is as it is, and astrology will always have it sceptics and critics just as it always has. Because it is so deeply philosophical the potential for debate is endless, but ending debate is not what we should be trying to achieve here. We only need to ensure that any point we make here is reliable and easily substantiated. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, the reason I am asking these questions is that I am a sceptic and I want to be certain that whatever is put up on this page is supported by clear independent references rather than original research or what may to some seem like a natural or obvious conclusion, but to others a leap of faith. I think rather than debate the content, can you or someone edit the last two sentences in the Core Principles with citation, deletion, addition (if necessary) & clarification. The final sentence is the the most contentious. It, at least, needs a citation or quote from Bacon or a biographer/historian that ties him to empirical study or measurement rather than free-will or theoretical causes. Depending on the relevance of the reference, it can be kept or moved or taken out. Robert Currey talk 10:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've edited Core principles, as suggested. I've trimmed a bit. In terms of principles, the four paragraphs seem to suggest principles that might be described as something like: integrated cosmos and symmetry, geometric consonances and properties, interpretation of the consonances code, and psychological effects and access. See User:Ken_McRitchie/Sandbox1. Hope this helps. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ken. Paragraphs 1 & 4 are good. (I am not sure if it should be the Cosmos or the cosmos). Unless someone provides it, I will try to find a reference to the last sentence on para 4. I too, have been working on paras 2 & 3 and will try to incorporate your ideas including the structure that you proposed. Robert Currey talk 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. The edited draft is just a draft and I'm happy to pass it on to the next editor. If I've added ideas that changed the meaning, then this is not what I wanted to do. I was trying to simplify and clarify by editing. I tried to remove some of the polemics and redundancies and leave facts and background. I believe if we can focus on what principles are bring presented then it will become easier to write and understand. This is not the more axiomatic approach I've always held as an ideal, and the principles don't seem as "basic" to me as they should be, but my edits are based on how I read and understand the existing section. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ken. I have redrafted the 3 middle paragraphs on my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertcurrey/draft-sandbox3 and Zac has redrafted it again so it has come down from 500 to 300 words. The paragraph could split at the words: "Later philosophers retained..." Please could everyone have a look and provide critical feedback as I intend to put it up onto the page shortly. Robert Currey talk 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Redraft (Core Principles Para 2) reads much better with some of the details inserted in the footnotes. I've inserted some comments and requests for clarifications. Since this is supposed to be American English, I've used "that" for some of the "which" (which is used only in clauses separated by commas), and serial commas (comma before final "and"). Also NASA is an acronym that should be in u.c. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen your comments and concur with most suggestions - thanks. Zac who researched them will be better placed to answer most of the questions. Robert Currey talk 18:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Basic tenets of astrology

Robert Currey made an observation which I was going to comment on as well. He says: It seems to me that the article has much emphasis on what astrology was (history), may or may not be (philosophy), is not (criticisms) and its impact elsewhere (effects on world culture), but nothing on what astrology is. It appears that editors are in agreement on the creation of a new section which would describe the basics of astrology. Ken McRitchie suggests Basics which is not a bad name. Other possibilities: The basics, Overview, Basic tenets. Anyone else with suggestions? SLP (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not call it "see: Western astrology"?

:)

We are talking about techniques here right? Because 'tenets' could be confused with principles and we already have a section on core principles we are trying to reduce. I'm not in favour of adding a new section on the basic techniques of astrology myself - my concern is that to be manageable in size each point will have to be so brief as hardly worthwhile.Just pointing out that we are not in full agreement about this; but if it seems to be the consensus opinion, then fair enough. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not techniques, Zac, but an outline of astrology. Basic building blocks, types, traditions: zodiac, planets, houses, aspects; natal, mundane, electional, horary; Western, Vedic, Chinese; etc. SLP (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether it is directly relevant here, but because this facility gives a very easy navigation to all the pages that cover the techniques and different traditions of astrology, please take a look (and play with) the info box I am developing on my sandbox. I am still working on it but hopefully it is not too far off the finished design. If there are any comment or suggestions, would be very pleased to hear them.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

SLP, - possible headings: techniques, chart construction ... I think this should be a very simple outline (of natal chart: rising sign/MC, planets, houses, signs. + forecasting: transits, progressions. + synastry. + links to horary, electional). The outline follows the description in the lede (as the lede should be explained in the body) and contain links out to specific pages on aspects, signs, etc. I have written something on this, which has since been deleted. However, I think this could be used as a basis.

Zac - the box is impressive and will add greatly to the page. I would like to use it on other astrology pages but with a different main image. Please add my sun ruler Venus to the list at the bottom! Also, while the pages to the individual signs of the Zodiac are currently so badly written and appear to be regularly vandalised, I suggest the list of signs go just above the planets at the bottom until they are improved. Robert Currey talk 23:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same way about the sign pages Robert, and I was tempted to not include those lnks for the same reason. But on reflection I concluded it would be wrong to do that, because there is public expectation for a page on astrology to link to information about sun-signs. As uncomfortable as it is, I think the links should remain - a painful reminder something should be done about those pages soon. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be a good approach, Robert. Do you still have your text? SLP (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

SLP - I have put the text into my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertcurrey/draft-sandbox Obviously it needs to be extended to at least include the horoscope, the zodiac, natal astrology and synastry. Robert Currey talk 09:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Kept to a brief introdution like that, I feel happier about this. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The box under the clock is very nice. When you have a subject like astrology it's a challenge to get good navigational aids for where to go for specific information, and this box is very good. As Zac said, the Basics is pretty well covered in Western Astrology. I don't see any obvious link to that article, but there should be one. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)