Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:34, 11 November 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astrology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Occult This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views High‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

More specific RfC on sourcing in research section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Responding to a request to closing this discussion and summarize on WP:AN. Consensus here seems to be to follow Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines like WP:FRINGE. In the context of this discussion, that means that while information from pseudoscientific journals and the like may be included, it should be covered in a manner which makes it clear that the information is not equivalent to science. Several people expressed sentiments which agreed with or were similar to what Dr Marcus Hill stated when he said "Whilst it's OK to include material from pseudoscientific sources, this shouldn't be given in WP's voice." That statement summarizes consensus here well, especially in light of the weight of prior consensus in developing the WP:FRINGE guidelines and on ArbCom's rulings in this area. --Jayron32 01:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The main questions deal with the sourcing used in the research section, in particular, the following subsections:

1) Methods ]: The section is written from the POV that astrology is based on scientific principles, and that astrologers carry out "research", with "experiments" yielding "empirical" data. The language of the section is studded with scientific terms and goes far beyond reporting just what astrologers claim; their claims are presented in the voice of WP. The sources used are almost entirely primary sources published in non-peer reviewd "journals" and monographs. The notability of the sources given cannot be determined. The section is apologetic in nature, and gives only the fringe point of view. Particularly troubling are the last few sentences, which grossly violate WP:GEVAL and imply that the "controversy" surrounding studies on astrology extends into the scientific community, and generally violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.

2) Gauquelin's research ]: The section pertains to a pseudoscientific self-published study of unknown notability that is placed on equal footing with a scientific study published in Nature (see next section). Again, all of the sources provided are either self-published or published in non-peer review journals. The whole section is purely apologetic in tone, and the mainstream scientific position is essentially waved aside.

3) Carlson's experiment ]: The first paragraph is fine, and describes a scientific study published in nature. The second paragraph, though, is a "rebuttal" that consists basically of kvetching culled entirely from non-peer-reviewed sources. The claims are extraoordinary and fringe, yet are presented in the voice of WP. This paragraph grosly violates WP:GEVAL, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.

4) Obstacles to research ]: Non-encyclopedic special pleading about why astrologers can't conduct or publish their "research" in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Again, sourced with unreliable sources. Although slightly better attributed, the section is purely apologetic in nature. As such, it is little more than an off-topic rant.

5) Mechanisms ]. The first paragraph and quote are fine. After that, however, follows yet another apologetic paragraph with an appeal to authority to Carl Sagan. The next paragraph is also purely apologetic. These two paragraphs are also sourced primarily with fringe non-peer-reviewed sources, except for the Sagan sources, which are given undue weight.

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Was it necessary to close the original RFC and create a new one which masks the earlier responses?

Yes, it was. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with starting a new RfC. Amending the prior RfC would have caused great confusion, since there were several replies already under the RfC, and they would have been made to look like non sequiturs. This is a brand new RfC and a "re do" is okay ... if it were a week old, a restart would probably be inappropriate. --Noleander (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE: An earlier RfC was made but was closed because many respondents complained that it was not specific enough. All respondents have ben notified of this new RfC on their talk pages and invited to comment further. The responses to the earlier RfC can be see here: ]. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC) 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a guideline on the topic of pseudoscience, which talks about special considerations to be used for pseudoscience related articles. That guideline has an entire section on reliability of sources for pseudoscience/fringe articles, namely WP:PARITY. That guideline states that the requirements for sourcing fringe topics in an article on a mainstream topic is very high, and fringe topics are usually omitted from mainstream articles; but in articles about the fringe topics themselves the standard is much lower, and it is okay to include sources that consider the pseudoscience to be genuine (but the sources should be clearly identified in the article itself). The guideline goes on to say that the threshold for criticism of fringe theories is correspondingly lower: any decent source may be used for criticism, even sources not in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, some of the suspect material you enumerate above can be included in this article, because the article is about the fringe theory. The best remedy is to rely on the fact that counter-balancing criticism of astrology can and should be included in this article, and that the sourcing requirements for such criticism is relaxed for this article. In general, the guideline includes lots of guidance that is designed to ensure that material in pseudoscience articles is not presented as scientific fact. --Noleander (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• Mechanisms section - For example, the "mechanisms" section is a bit misleading because it implies there are mechanisms, and that Sagan supports that concept. The WP Policies WP:Undue and WP:PARITY make it clear that no section in this article can place more than about half the weight endorsing the suggestion that astrology is valid. The remedy is to add more explicit balancing material that says "No, there is no mechanism" and name 3 or 4 prominent scientists that hold that view. The Mechanism section should be about half "maybe there is a mechanism" and about half "scientists say there definitely not". Ditto for all other sections in the article. Even in the lead: the "Mainstream considers astrology to be a pseudoscience" should be in the first paragraph, not at the tail end. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Noleander. I don't see the concern with the mechanisms section myself. Far from suggesting that there are approved mechanisms, the passage is clear "Few astrologers believe that astrology can be explained by any direct causal mechanisms between planets and people". The references to Sagan are relevant because his refusal to sign the 'manifesto' is a significant point in modern astrological history, and continues to be referred to frequently. The text clarifies that he refused to sign on a matter of principle, and not because he thought that astrology was valid. The passage offers an overview of various influential views on the matter, demonstrating the diversity of opinion. I would say the last sentence regarding Percy Seymour is questionable. I placed a clarification needed tag on that some months ago. Since the clarification hasn't been forthcoming, that could be removed. That would help to balance the passage I believe, since it seems to imply that a mechanism exists which could explain astrology, which conflicts with earlier assertions that astrology is not based on a recognised mechanism, and is not causal in its basis (it is not a case of given that view an equal share of support, but clarifying that it's a red herring in terms of what the subject is about, whilst succintly covering the arguments that have been raised around that point).

The lede should not be tinkered without good reason. There were months of discussion involving editors with sceptical views, which established that, for now, the lede is appropriate and should be left as it is until the article is complete. This article is undergoing development - the history section is incomplete and will include a section on modern history, popularisation, commercialisation, etc, and this will also include its own criticisms section. In a topic with the historical and cultural influence that this subject has, it is inappropriate to place the main emphasis of its definition on what it is not. Astrology is not a science, and the lede is perfectly clear in stating this, and in choosing to specify - from all the points of notability that the subject has, that it has been defined as a pseudoscience. To go beyond that in the lede is to introduce undue weight. The page has a duty to present a comprehensive overview of the full story of astrology. Giving proportionate coverage to all its points of notability and significance.

Intelligent consideration and calm objectivity is required to get the balance of this controversial subject right. If the passage on mechanisms is considered to leave the view that any approved mechanism has been recognised, then how do we adjust this, to cover the relevant arguments and discussions, whilst emphasising that the principles of astrology are supported by philosophical theories, not scientific ones? Perhaps it is the use of the word 'mechanisms; in the title of this subsection that leads towards the wrong emphasis? If so, we need discussion on that point. (Most of the contributors who developed this content are not currently here. One stated a trip to India and I am not sure if he has returned yet). -- Zac Δ 16:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to the RfC. The Research section is highly problematic for the reasons outlined. It should not be implied that astrologers carry out scientific research. A section "Scientific standing" would be appropriate and could reflect the range of scientific views of astrology, a range that in the real world is overwhelmingly weighted towards outright rejection. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith. The solutions to Dominus Vobisdu's inquiry is not "delete it because the sources are flaky" but rather "WP permits so-so souces for fringe topics, so instead balance it with counter-balancing material and neutral phrasing." The suggestion of Itsmejudith is a great example of re-working the material to be more objective and to ensure that WP does not present astrology as a legitimate science to unsuspecting readers. --Noleander (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re the comment: "It should not be implied that astrologers carry out scientific research" - are you suggesting that astrologers, even if suitably qualified to do so, should not be allowed to carry out scientific research? Or that the astrological community should not be allowed to invest its interests in scientific research? Or that if they do, the article should not be allowed to report it? Most of the research discussed here was not carried out by astrologers. Are you saying that the article is not allowed to report on the notable studies with discussion of the issues they raise and the relevant findings and criticisms applied to them, even when based on informative, reliable and verifiable sources? I also support the idea of neutral reporting, but what I want to establish is - are both sides of the argument allowed to be told? If so, we are in catch 22; if not, we are in a worse place than that. -- Zac Δ 16:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean, "research", as it is commonly understood in scholarly communities, is not part of the activity called "astrology". Notable studies can of course be mentioned, in fact all notable studies ought to be mentioned. As a way of moving forward, it would help if some people would list what they think are the best sources describing astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Dominus Vobisdu, you have raised this RFC. From the wording of your points, it would appear to me that you are not familiar with current astrological work, thinking and trends. I'm not even sure whether you could define what astrology is. If true, that would not only give a strong POV bias to your efforts but also question your overall involvement. This issue has plagued the astrology article for some time: it is 'laypeople' vs. astrologers, with the former getting their uninformed views through by weight of opinion (i.e. sheer numbers) and procedural politics (i.e. being well versed in WP editorship but knowing nothing about the subject matter). For example, accepting the original Carlson article written by a student, which is an incredibly poor piece, just because it was published in Nature while rejecting scholarly articles written and peer-reviewed by subject matter experts, that raise relevant issues and put the original article in proper light, just because it was not published in a mainstream scientific journal is poor editorial judgment in my view. Similarly for not recognizing Gauquelin's significance etc, etc. Poor show overall for bringing up these straw-man arguments and red herrings, but this is not limited to your good self, unfortunately. Nothing personal, of course, just the subjective view of an editor. SLP (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — StarLightPiazza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Remove all attempts based on non-RS to portray subject as connected with science While RfCs are necessary, it is obvious that there are two sides with irreconcilable differences and this discussion will go nowhere—only a major intervention from ANI or Arbcom will resolve the situation. The text at Astrology#Research is designed to suggest that scientific research supports aspects of astrology, with blue-link laden text to impress the reader (example: "The investigation of astrology has used the empirical methods of both qualitative research and quantitative research"). The sources are junk which fail WP:RS for any comment regarding a connection between arbitrary astrological events and life on Earth. Yes, the sources can (in a due manner) outline what astrologers think, but the current article uses language tricks to mix beliefs and scientific-sounding language with the result that a reader would be misled about what reliable sources say regarding the connection between heavenly objects and everyday life. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Follow ArbCom ruling Astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience and should be discussed from that perspective. We can certainly mention various studios like those conducted by Gauquelin, but they must be discussed from the perspective that they never received much traction in actual scientific communities. The same goes for marginally sourced criticisms of studies published in major publications like Carlson's research. Overall this article has far too much fringe apologetics for astrology and far to little discussion of the actual history and forms of the various existing types of astrology. --Daniel 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Every scientific claim sourced to a fringe source must be removed. This includes any astrology journal, book, or website, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and others. None of these journals are indexed in Web of Science, none are widely cited, and none show signs of being part of mainstream academic discourse. The "Research" section - indeed, most of the article - is unambiguously in violation of WP:UNDUE. Skinwalker (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'll add more to this later. If you have an acknowledged scientist, that is a scientist with a good scientific reputation, published in a fringy journal, do you automatically ignore what they say because of the journal? Are we saying that legit scientists publish in fringe journals only when they want to break with science or have something unscientific to say? I understand about peer review, but I also do not understand complete dismissal. B——C_{ritical__Talk} 03:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally, if a legitimate scientist has something scientific to say, they are going to try their darndest to get it published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal of considerable prestige and relevance. The motivation for doing so is incredibly high. If a legitimate scientist self-publishes or publishes his work in a fringe journal, it is a good bet that either 1) the paper was rejected by mainstream journals, 2) it was not even submitted to a mainstream journal because the author thought it would be rejected, or 3) the paper is on a topic that is either non-scientific or outside the scientist's field of expertise to the point that the scientist lacks competence to contribute to the field. Legitimate scientists can and do publish non-scientific or popular scientific papers in non-peer reviewed journals, and there is usually nothing wrong with this. On the other hand, when a scientist publishes a paper that ostensibly appears to be a serious scientific study in a fringe journal, skepticism is justified, and the validity of the study is questionable. It will generally be ignored or dismissed by the mainstream scientific community without the benefit of being read, regardless of the scientist's credentials, because it did not pass though a process of rigorous peer review. Scientists do not have time to scour through obscure fringe journals and evaluating papers of dubious validity on the extremely remote chance that they will find anything of scientific value. After all, one of the main funtions of the peer-review process is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Bottom line: sources that make scientific claims that do not appear in mainstream recognized peer-reviewed journals can safely be considered as unreliable sources of little, if any, utility for WP purposes. It's a case of "guilty until proven innocent". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Do not make use of pseudo-journals. At all. The article should not give the impression that there is serious scientific debate about astrology, because there isn't. Please see this discussion, not because Jimbo has spoken, but because it outlines the issue. Journals which make claims about the existence of ghosts or remote viewing or a collective consciousness are not reliable sources for scientific claims. It may be that there is room in the article for discussion of attempts to scientifically legitimise astrology, but this should be based on unbiased, quality secondary sources. If no such sources can be found, then the content is not noteworthy for inclusion in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Rephrase the section. Whilst it's OK to include material from pseudoscientific sources, this shouldn't be given in WP's voice. Attribute the claims carefully, whilst being clear about their actual truth status. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Remove most material cited to pseudo-scientific journals. These journals/books are not much better than self-published sources, and should be treated as such (lack of real editorial oversight, etc.) They can be used, carefully, to clarify the positions of the authors of the articles/books or the journal (as appropriate), but should not be used as the sole or even significant minority of sources here. They should only be used if independent sources establish the (for lack of a better word) notability of a position or claim, for WP:WEIGHT purposes. Independent secondary sources are the backbone of every article on Misplaced Pages, and this should be no different. Yobol (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Astrological Research should not be buried by WP rules. When 6 independently published and peer reviewed studies whose authors include 3 psychology professors (including the eminent Hans Eysenck) reveal flaws and data sampling errors in an experiment started by a 19 year old physics undergraduate sponsored by CSICOP and published in Nature by a CSICOP fellow, it is time to follow the spirit of the rules and not the letter of the rules. In dealing with this page, we should always consider the experience of the author, the context and the pre-eminent journals in the field. Robert Currey talk 14:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So your argument rests on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, the logical fallacy of special pleading, and the complete nonsense of equating in-universe fringe rags with genuine peer-reviewed scientific publications, with a dash of conspiracy theorizing and a pich of cries of censorship. Sounds like a recipe for BULLSHIT to me. And you want us to ditch WP policies for that??? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you don't intend it, but you write as if you are angry and emotional about astrology. What kind of studies or experience have led to you to feel this way? Have you looked at the papers (Carlson & Ertel) since they are published on the web? Robert Currey talk 15:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, joy! An appeal to motive and yet more special pleading! You ain't preachin' to the choir here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - you've answered my questions. Robert Currey talk 22:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rewrite from perspective of mainstream science. WP:FRINGE is very clear on this, and I don't think an exception should be made in this case. We should make it crystal clear exactly what mainstream science thinks of the work listed in the research/scientific appraisal section. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I trust you would apply your opinion consistently and agree that the published views of mainstream science which were expressed by Hans Eysenck should not be withheld. The eminent psychologist was arguably the world's leading expert in psychological testing and by the end of this life the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals. Eysenck was crystal clear in his sharp criticism of the astrological study initiated by a 19-year-old physics graduate and sponsored by CSICOP (not mainstream science). Would using trying to use WP rules to cover up the views of mainstream science be justified if the alternative views fitted one's beliefs? Robert Currey talk 09:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Eysenck's defence of astrology is notable and should be mentioned somewhere in the series of articles. However, we need to take care. Notwithstanding Eysenck's eminence, he was always a controversialist and published for popular audiences, so his views never automatically represent the mainstream. Sometimes he represents the mainstream, sometimes one side in a an academic debate, and sometimes he espoused fringe positions. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:FRINGE theory should be clearly stated - This article is about a WP:FRINGE theory and it should be clearly stated citing mainstream scientific sources. There is no point in including pseudo-science sources. Those would obviously contradict with the mainstream scientific sources, thus those are not WP:RS. Abhishikt (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Would fringe sources (in this case a peer reviewed astrology journal) have to contradict mainstream sources? How does astrology 'obviously contradict' mainstream science? Robert Currey talk 09:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are mis-using the term "peer reviewed", there is no such thing as a peer reviewed astrology journal.--Adam in MO Talk 17:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Sorry, I had not realised that there was a second RFC. Look folks, there is a lot of spittle and ink about scientific research and "fringe research" as criteria. Don't bother to throw bad eggs my way, claiming that I am pro-astrology, because I regard it as non-recyclable garbage, but unfortunately, few of the noisiest on either side seem to have much clear idea of any cogent philosophy of research, or of cogent research in practice. WP in general has no cogent policy on the point that I have seen, beyond making NOR, NPOV, citations, and a few similar expressions into mantras and arguments ad baculum. The arguments cut both ways, and there are distinctly hysterical notes in some of the reactions to astrology partisans who are pushing their own ideas on research. Quashing the fringe ideas in cogent, fair terms is not as simple as it sounds; it takes more than opinions; it takes skills, actual hard work and functional knowledge. Then again, the fact of the matter is that research is no magic bullet. The amount of mainstream research that I have seen that wouldn't deserve a place in the national enquirer's astrology page, you wouldn't believe (I hope!) Experimental design is a demanding discipline and experimental work and analysis no less so. Challenge the astrologers on the grounds of research, and you invite all sorts of rubbish that not one in ten of the zealots here present could do better than shout down with abuse. I am not sure what to recommend, because one thing I know for sure is that I would not touch the matter with a long pole, but if you want it done properly, you need a team (as opposed to a committee) that understands research, its pitfalls, and how to look for holes, as opposed to simply OKing a pal's PhD student's dissertation. Remember, research to answer meaningless questions phrased to sound meaningful will give you, not only answers that sound meaningful and cogent, but unanswerable figures to go with it. One of your problems is that every second second-year student and reader of popular science thinks he is just what the establishment needs to jazz up the system because he has learnt the long, hard words like falsification and induction and Popperism. So how to choose your team, I don't know, but I know that I won't be on it. But if anyone would like a fictitious example of how perfectly valid research can lead you up a blind alley, let me know. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rephrase, per Johnuniq and Dr Marcus. WP:FRINGE has no double standard regarding citations in pseudo-scientific articles; while non-RS can certainly be mentioned in the article, citations must be to reliable sources. I think it's time for a request for arbitration; this RFC just seems to be going around in circles.--Miniapolis (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that P-word is the only thing that really matters here

A recently initiated arbitration request resulted in an editor who was, IMO, making a valuable contribution to this page, being topic-banned for 6 months, for being unable to "discuss matters more circumspectly and ... avoid drama-creating rhetoric". But where is the circumspect and drama-avoiding rhetoric where Hipocrite refers to the most respected astrological journal as an 'unreliable source' because it "undergoes only sham peer review". This is his negative speculation and it is unnecessarily divisive language - Correlation undergoes academic peer-review, not scientific peer-review, nor "sham peer review". Points can be made here without being unduly provocative and disrespectful.

The content on the page is poor and one-sided, and the editorial approach has become disreputable and demoralizing. All the energy, activity and policy-employment seems designed to keep the emphasis on the 'P'-word, as if it is the only thing of concern to this subject. I should have more to say, but I what's the point when it always comes back to that one issue, and editorial discussion that keeps the focus on controversies and conflicts rather than the development of better main-space content? -- Zac Δ 16:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this quote from Jimbo Wales says everything that needs to be said about this. Continuing to push fringe journals as respectable against our policies is not going to work. Yobol (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Correlation is exactly what is meant in policy by a journal that is presented as if it were a peer-reviewed academic journal but isn't one. That is quite easily established. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the way you both responded almost immediately to make lame comments about Correlation (as if I was trying to 'push' it) and missed the point of my post, says everything that needs to be said about this. -- Zac Δ 16:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you don't want someone to respond to something you've said, you probably shouldn't bring it up in the first place? Yobol (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the discussion just up above, the major problem there is RC misunderstanding arbcomm. So I think all the discussion that he premised on that misunderstanding needs to be restarted (or ignored). BTW, what substantive edits regarding Correlation are in question? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Zachariel quotes me as saying that Coorelation is a "unreliable source." This is a fabrication. I have not, to my knowledge, called Coorelation an "unreliable source." I have stated it is not a reliable source for science, as it engages only in sham peer review. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite you are reframing and mischaracterizing a comment and accusing an editor of fabrication, another word for lying, while doing so. Zac's comment above clearly qualified the statement,"reliable source"because it "undergoes only sham peer review". The discussion of this source deserves time and attention even if just because an editor asks for discussion on it. That's collaborative and civil.

Please use a comment by Jimbo Wales as just another comment rather than a definitive statement. Jimbo does not speak Ex Cathedra. I know very little about astrology and nothing about the sources but what I see here is the potential for creating ownership and nastiness when logical, thoughtful, and civil discussion is all that's needed. As soon as I see reframing and mis characterization I become suspicious about motive and POV. I'd hate to see this discussion deteriorate.(olive (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC))

Correlation has been soundly rejected as a source for science at RSN - see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_105#Sources_at_Astrology. The "mis characterization" is where I was accused of rejecting Correlation as a source for what Astrologers believe, which I have never done. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to this discussion and this thread, although I see your point. My concern is with the tone on this page. I have no position on the source, although I would tend to see it in the way Itsmejudith does on the NB, but I wouldn't state my position with out much closer scrutiny which at present I can't deal with.(olive (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC))

If users are so connected to the sources at issue here they find that disparaging a source causes them personal agita, perhaps they are too close to the subject of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That's true of many editors on this article. The best method for discussion is to not assume anything about any editor, but just deal with the content. I'll bow out of this now and hope the tone on the article can be congenial.(olive (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC))

I apologise for breaking into this exciting two-person discussion, but could you explain why you care about Correlation so much? There appear to be no edits at dispute that involve it, and it is only used in one apparently uncontroversial place on the page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

William, the dispute about Correlation (and some other so-called 'fringe' sources) is that they are the only sources that have published articles that contain serious research into astrology since the Carlson experiment (1985). We have a Catch 22 argument which boils down to the premise that the only publications that contain astrological research are not acceptable in the article because they publish astrological research. Authors including Hans Eysenck and two other psychology professors have made serious criticisms of the Carlson test, but these criticisms have been withheld because they were published in journals that while being suitable for the subject matter are deemed fringe.

Hipocrite, could you please explain how the Correlation peer-review is a sham? Robert Currey talk 23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The burden is on you to prove that it's not a sham. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert, the Carlson article is scientific research, so it needs scientific research (or argument) in order to be debunked. This means research submitted to the editorial processes of a scientific journal. Research published in astrological journals will not do. --FormerIP (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much time for Misplaced Pages right now, even to read, but in case it's relevant let me just restate that in an article on astrology, astrological opinion will be welcome, and should be attributed. In a section on science relative to astrology, the opinion of astrologers about science relative to astrology will be welcome, and should be attributed. And the best sources for the opinion of astrologers on science would be the journals which astrologers set up to discuss their take on science. Also, we can't call out "pseudoscience" without discussing pseudoscience. B——C_ritical 00:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, FormerIP (and BeCritical whose post overlapped with mine). I agree that criticism and reanalysis of Carlson's methods and conclusions can only be done in a scientific way. I don't believe that any of the seven critics of Carlson would disagree with this point and this has been their MO. However, there is no scientific journal that would publish a paper that favours astrology - partly because the editor would not understandably want their journal to be labelled pseudoscience and partly because journals specialise and astrology is outside their scope. The astrological journals are the only appropriate place for astrological research even in the case of an eminent psychologist like Professor Hans Eysenck. The peer review process in Correlation is no less than any scientific journal. When an experiment also involves astrology, it is more rigorous in many ways as those involved in astrological research have considerable experience of the endless ways that artifacts that can bias results.

So a circular argument that was devised understandably to prevent conspiracy or crank theorists being on par with conventional wisdom, is being used to distort the significant and relevant evidence in an article specifically about astrology. The article currently falsely suggests that no one is critical of the Carlson test, when criticism has been unanimous, authoritative and widespread. Ultimately, when what is effectively a cover-up comes out, it will reflect badly on all of us here. I have suggested that the article reports the criticisms and reappraisal of Carlson, but in the interests of tipping the balance in favour of Carlson, it should be pointed out that the sources of the criticism are published in what is considered fringe publications and not part of mainstream science. Robert Currey talk 01:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert, you are wrong that the peer review process in an astrology journal is no different from that in a scientific journal. In the latter case, the methodology for peer review is sceptical and critical. Being peer reviewed by astrologers is not being peer reviewed.

When I last looked at the article, Carlson's study was presented as something that had been comprehensively trashed. So it's good to see that some progress has been made. If you want to add criticism of Carlson, I would suggest looking for neutral secondary sources. --FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review by astrologers is the only way to peer review astrology because they are the peers in this discipline. Carlson's study was not skeptically and critically peer reviewed and that's why it's in so much trouble today. It is finally getting the peer review it should have had, but in a much more public forum. Besides the fact that the data has been found to support astrology, it's also a very interesting story how it all came about, reminiscent of the disputes over Gauquelin's findings only in reverse. I agree that a neutral secondary source at this point would be helpful. Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutral secondary sources would be nice, and they would be necessary, if we were trying to put things in Misplaced Pages's voice, or otherwise treat this as a "scientific dispute between scientists." But if we take the anthropological approach we can cover the differing points of view without validating. We don't need "truth" or scholarly sources for reporting opinion. RS are relative to the information being reported, and just as the Catholic News Service would be RS for some things, so are the astrology journals. They are RS for astrologer's opinion about certain matters. FormerIP, you've seen the progress, and I assure you that this progress can be maintained without excluding relevant RS. I repeat, there is no difference between reporting on astrological views of science and, say, on religious views of aliens: we can use the relevant sources if we use them correctly. If you need a Jimbo quote for that, I'm sure he'd be willing to generate one. B——C_ritical 04:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken, imagine that this wasn't over astrology but over a Perpetual motion machine, which is impossible. Don't you think the person pushing the machine would want to be able to have other believers be the reviewers rather than neutral parties? There are obvious problems with that scenario. Also, even if the studies that found nothing were terrible studies, it still would not put the scientific weight anywhere near astrology being valid. In the long run of things, these studies are not the nail in the coffin, they are more like a strand of wood. Nformation 04:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

@Robert: what you're not grasping is that as far as science is concerned, astrology is crank, just as much "crank" as anything else that is regarded as crank. Intelligent design, perpetual motion and astrology are equally without merit; the only real world difference is that astrology happens to have a much larger amount of "believers.". Very few people - if any - who are knowledgeable about the intricacies of scientific knowledge that have amassed would think twice about astrology.

I'm not writing this to turn this into a forum, here's my point: you make the claim that this article is about astrology and therefore we should use astrological "journals," but astrology makes claims about the actual physical environment, and that means it's in the realm of something science can study, which means it's in the realm of scientists. Just as we go to historians for historical information, we go to scientists for physical, biological, chemical, etc. Astrology makes claims that commend on and are incompatible with multiple scientific disciplines, from astronomy to zoology. Thus, as a question of the physical universe, science is the expert to which we appeal for all matters related to the factual data regarding astrology. Astrologers are not qualified to comment on matters of science anymore than lawyers are. I know that the sources you want to use are written by actual scientists, but that is not enough, the sources themselves have to be mainstream, scientific sources. Just like any other fringe article. Nformation 04:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't say that about astrology without saying it about religion. I'm fine with what you say, but if we don't do it for religion, we don't do it here. B——C_ritical 04:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Other pages are other pages with their own talk pages and have absolutely 0 impact on this page, this is actually a policy regarding this but it's buried in some other policy that I can't remember, but take my word for it. Furthermore, you know damn well that criticizing religion is a severe taboo in 99% of the world. It holds a special place in society and is unfortunately afforded certain luxuries. Astrology, however, does not hold that luxury anymore than scientology does. Nformation 05:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, insofar as religion makes specific claims, we absolutely say that. Intelligent design is not a page that will make you feel like the idea has any merit. Nformation 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And yet even there, their FAQ is used. But okay, if we're going to get into how it actually is, it's roaringly stupid to ignore what people say about themselves. It doesn't inform the reader properly. So let's not be stupid. They are primary sources, and while we should use them with care, we need not censor relevant data because they are not secondary. Your point about social tradition and religion is well taken. But not to the extent that we leave the reader wondering what astrologers believe. B——C_ritical 06:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We can definitely use primary sources for claims they make about themselves, but not about science. Like I said, they aren't qualified any more than a lawyer to comment on science, and there's no way we'd use a lawyer for that purpose. Nformation 07:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We would if the article were about lawyers and their views on science were notable. Just as religious views about science are notable. B——C_ritical 17:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP – thanks for your points which help me better understand your position. There is a basic but IMO false assumption that if someone considers that there appears to be evidence of correlations between planetary cycles and terrestrial phenomena, they must lack critical thinking. Those who believe that correlations do or do not exist before they have investigated the claims empirically are the ones who lack critical thinking. Whether it is in everyday life or in science, we should test our hypotheses before reaching conclusions. This is how I came from being dismissively sceptical of astrology to a sceptical astrologer.

So there is no reason that a scientist such as Dr Pat Harris, editor of Correlation, who has earned her (science oriented) PhD at a respectable university, should abandon her critical thinking when it comes to investigating astrology. I accept that many scientists abandon their critical thinking when it comes to religion. But then, with theism, we are talking about an ‘unfalsifiable’ belief and not the analysis of verifiable data. Someone here will claim that all astrologers are biased because they seek to ‘prove astrology’. However, any scientist (and this isn’t confined to those researching a cure for cancer) is hugely motivated to find significant experimental results. Yet, it is rare to find scientists (including astrologers trained in science) who want success on false pretences resulting in a failure to get independent replication or where the data can later be shown to be subject to sampling errors as is indisputably the case in the Carlson experiment.

I would add to Ken's comment to state that peer review by astrologers trained in scientific method is the only way to peer review astrology because they are the peers in this discipline. This accounts for the many faults and erroneous conclusion in the Carlson experiment and a third reason why astrological papers are unsuitable for mainstream scientific journals.

If mainstream scientific journals do not publish astrological papers for reasons already discussed, what would you consider to be acceptable neutral secondary sources?

NoFormation and BeCritical - thank you for your comments – I will review them and may respond as soon as I can find a moment. Robert Currey talk

If I may repeat myself on a point I made many times above, while astrology sources may be reliable for the author/journal of that astrology source, we need independent sources to establish that their views deserve any weight before we add it, per WP:FRINGE#Independent_sources. Yobol (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

NoFormation, I am not familiar with the religious debate on WP and was not being disingenuous. I accept that the reason that Intelligent Design is not branded as a pseudoscience on WP even though it qualifies as a classic case is because editors have been unable to do so due to pressure from religious interests and successful special pleading. And this leads onto my point.

I have read several specious analogies with astrology here. The Catholic News Service or religious views on aliens are within the category of religion, which is a faith subject. We seem to be agreed that astrology is verifiable and therefore not in that category so these type of faith-oriented analogies are misleading. Secondly analogies with theories based on faith that also contradict scientific theories such as Intelligent Design or Scientology or the simply faithless hypothetical Perpetual Motion Machines are also specious. Unlike ID v Darwinism etc., astrology does not challenge scientific theory.

Noformation, you claim that “Astrology makes claims that commend on and are incompatible with multiple scientific disciplines, from astronomy to zoology.” I have asked other editors about this before. Please support this claim with examples.

I agree that astrologers per se are not qualified to comment on matters of science any more than lawyers. However, astrologers or lawyers trained in science are qualified to comment on science. By the same token, how can you support your claim that people who are knowledgeable about science are in a position to comment on matters of astrology? An expert in many fields of science cannot learn about astrology by osmosis. It is very rare to find a scientist who is dismissive of astrology* who also understands the fundamental premise and has knowledge of the subject. I know this because I have discussed astrology with a great many scientists and a good scientist is always willing to learn and investigate before making any judgement.

(*) NoFormation, you actually wrote "would think twice about astrology". There are a few possible meanings here but I sense that you were saying dismissive rather seriously thinking about the subject.

Robert Currey talk 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert, scientists who are not astrologists are in a positions to consider the question of astrology's scientific validity because it is a scientific question, not an astrological one.

Yobol is spot-on in pointing you to WP:FRINGE#Independent_sources. You should read the whole of that page if you haven't already. As I said above, you should be looking for secondary (or independent) sources. Chapter 13 of this book looks like it might be a promising place to start. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should straighten FRINGE out before quoting it too much. Can someone explain which sources are allowable considering these two passages?

"Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."

"Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Misplaced Pages. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.

So which is it? And what is a "point?" Carlson, after all, discussed science and astrology. And astrology is no more or less verifiable than religion. Robert Currey, stop defending astrological sources/persons on the basis of being scientific, and start defending them on the basis of being notable for this article. B——C_ritical 18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I have a slightly different take on all this. It seems to me that one thing of interest in the article, enough to merit a section, is the question of what modern (scientific) scholarship thinks about astrology. And logically the sources for that topic are from modern scientific scholarship. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That would obviously be excellent. Using such a section or block of text might go far toward assuaging the fears of those who think we would do the reader a disservice by also describing the opinions of astrologers on the same subject. I'm not sure I understand why they're so vehement about this, but it makes no logical sense to me to exclude relevant notable views. B——C_ritical 18:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

How do we know which views are relevant and notable? Answer: we find them discussed in mainstream sources.

In answer to your above question, BC, I don't see a contradiction. On the one hand, we should look to independent (ie mainstream, secondary) sources for our information. On the other, we should not exclude information simply on the grounds that it isn't peer reviewed. The second extract you quoted doesn't instruct us to make use of fringe journals. --FormerIP (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And how do you explain this little contradiction?

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory. B——C_ritical 18:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the same thing, BC. The guidline is permitting the use of reliable sources that are not peer reviewed. That could include "reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books", but does not include fringe journals. --FormerIP (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In responce to Itmejudith's last comment: To be more precise, it's a question of what modern (scientific) scholarship thinks about the validity of astrologer's claims that astrology has any basis in science, and astrologers have no special competence to contribute to that debate, even though it pertains to their own claims.

If their criticism of the scientific evaluation of their claims were published in mainstream scientific publications, that would be a different matter. But there is little reason to assume that criticism published in fringe sources has any scientific merit or relevance whatsoever.

I see Becritical's point that the claims of astrologer's to which the scientists are responding should be presented, but I question his apparent willingness to resort to citing rimary in-universe sources to do so. The examples given should be selected from those presented in the independent mainstream scholarly literature. Selecting examples on our own would be essentially OR and SYNTH, because we have no way of verifying how representive the claim is. Nor should that be our job. This is further complicated by the fact that there are no clearly recognized spokesmen or authority figures in the astrological community, and no authoritative texts to rely on, in any meaningful sense of those words.

The same would apply to the history section, which should be based solely on the mainstream scholarly literature as well. There is no reason to assume that astrologers have any special expertise in the history of astrology simply by virtue of being astrologists. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, please explain "primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts." That's why I called it a contradiction. And for instance, why is Bill_Kaysing cited in FRINGE's example of the moon landing thing? Dominus, you're right that if the astrologers here can't give us a good reason to think that the internal sources are notable within the astrological community, the only way we have to know if they're notable is to refer to outside sources. I think we agree on things. B——C_ritical 20:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you're not understanding, BC. The moon-landing thing is something "primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts". i.e. there are many self-published websites and so on on this topic. But we do not use those as sources, and the guideline doesn't tell us to. All it tells us that the fact that it is documented in those non-RS places is not reason to exclude it from Misplaced Pages or to demand only peer-reviewed sources. We could, for example use this or this . --FormerIP (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"The first book about the subject, Bill Kaysing's self-published We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, was released in 1974, two years after the Apollo Moon flights had ended." And it's cited later in the article. You seem to be incorrect. B——C_ritical 23:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about here, BC. Are you looking at an article to do with moon landing theories and supposing it should be a model? Is this Kaysing guy perhaps heavily cited and therefore a reliable source? --FormerIP (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

BC – I accept that some parts of religion are verifiable e.g the power of prayer and some parts of astrology are difficult to verify. However, if astrology is like a religion and generally not verifiable then the Carlson experiment has no place in the article. Whatever the results, I think it is of huge importance and cannot be omitted. If you can find a reliable source that states that astrology is not verifiable, then it could be included as a counter to or criticism of Carlson's attempt to quantify astrology. I also appreciate your advice that the focus of the discussion should be about notability rather than whether the response from independent scientists published in astrological and fringe journals could be admissible. I will look into that.

FormerIP - when you write “scientists who are not astrologists are in a position to consider the question of astrology's scientific validity because it is a scientific question, not an astrological one.” are you saying that astrologers who are also scientists are not in a position to consider astrology’s scientific validity? And if so, why not?

Also, you write “The guideline is permitting the use of reliable sources that are not peer reviewed. That could include "reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books", but does not include fringe journals.” Does the guideline specifically state that fringe journals are not included in this context? This would not make sense, since a peer reviewed published source should be more reliable, verifiable and notable (being published and reviewed by qualified third parties) than a website or a book which is often the unedited views of one author. The context seems to be that as many fringe theories do not have peer reviewed articles, the views of the adherents should not be excluded simply because of a lack of peer review. Rather than rule out peer reviewed articles; it reads (to me) as if they are lowering the bar to allow inclusion of less authoritative sources in addition. Does anyone have a different take on this?

WP:SECONDARY states that “a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.” This would have been the case when Professor Eysenck reviewed Carlson’s experiment in the Astrological Journal.

On this basis, I believe that we can no longer justify exclusion of Eysenck’s critique on Carlson’s experiment as it is evidently an authoritative secondary source within the context. Robert Currey talk 13:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Who are the real critics?

Just to get things back on track, it is not astrologers' claims that are stalling this article but rather the claims found in the student work of Shawn Carlson, which Nature published in 1985. Because this study was published in Nature it is a scientific claim. To repeat, astrologers (and some scientists) are not the ones making any astrological claim in this case, but are critically challenging Carlson's claims.

Carlson actually did not make astrological errors (as are frequently seen in statistical studies done by skeptics). While in the opinion of astrologers who have commented, the design pertaining to astrology could have been better, it was nevertheless good enough. The astrology is not the point of the criticism. The challenge to Carlson's claims is made on the purely technical grounds of errors in the statistical analysis, which anyone with a modicum of statistics can plainly see for themselves. The criticism comes from, among others, three professors of psychology, and these professors don't really care that much about astrology, and are certainly not defending it. The criticism is more in line with a defense of science against the errors of a student experiment that has gotten out of hand. A study done in 1985 about astrology is not going to attract a lot of notice by mainstream media no matter how faulty it was, but it is important to astrologers and astrological journals have published the criticism.

Carlson's study is crucially important because it has become the only well-documented scientific claim against astrology that appears to have succeeded and consequently it has become the most highly cited example used by skeptics against the discipline. It is now clear, however, that Carlson's article was not properly and critically peer reviewed for its math but was uncritically assumed to be sound because it supported cherished beliefs against astrology. This placed both scientists and astrologers who have examined the experiment in the role of critics. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Until we have something published via WP:RS attesting to any of the above; Carlson stands. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You know the truth and I know the truth and anyone who has read the sources knows the truth, but the thousands of people who read the article are still mislead. Is this right? I know you and all the other pedants who call themselves editors are going to recite WP policy to me and say it must stay, but I ask again, is this right? Ken McRitchie (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use fringe journals to contradict Nature. I suggest that you are, in fact, wrong, and do not know the "truth." Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it fair to say "Contemporary scientists consider astrology a pseudoscience"? This is a sweeping statement that suggests scientists from all fields have agreed on this point but the references don't support that.Coaster92 (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary is misleading (the condemnation goes back at least 600 years). As defined...

astrology, n.

1. gen. Practical astronomy; the practical application of astronomy as an art to human uses; esp. (in later usage) to the prediction of events natural or moral. The original distinction between Astronomy the science, and Astrology the art, is clearly expressed by Gower Conf. III. 105–135. Chaucer's Treatise on the Astrolabe was a work of ‘astrology,’ i.e. practical astronomy.

‘Astrology’ was of two kinds:

a. More fully natural astrology. The calculation and foretelling of natural phenomena, as the measurement of time, fixing of Easter, prediction of tides and eclipses; also of meteorological phenomena. Obs.This sense (exc. in Hist.) became obs. in 17th c., all the regular physical phenomena passing into the domain of astronomy n., and those that concerned the presumed influence of the moon and planets on the weather, etc., being called astro-meteorology.

b. More fully judicial astrology. The art of judging of the reputed occult and non-physical influences of the stars and planets upon human affairs; star-divination, astromancy. (The only meaning of ‘Astrology’ since end of 17th c.)

"Judiciary or Judicial Astrology, which we commonly call simply Astrology, is that which pretends to foretell moral events, i.e. such as have a dependence on the free will and agency of man; as if that were directed by the stars.", Chambers Cycl. 1727.

• 1393 - "Assembled with astronomy Is eke that ilke astrology, The which in jugements accompteth Theffect, what every sterre amounteth.", Gower iii. 107.
• 1560 - "An Admonition against Astrology Judiciall, and other curiosities that reygne now in the World.", G. Gylby (title), transl. Calvin.
• 1597 - "Thou damned mock-art, and thou brainsick tale, Of old Astrology.", Bp. J. Hall Virgidemiarvm ii. vii. 43.
• 1649 - "That other Calculatory, or figure-casting Astrology is presumptuous and unwarrantable.", Bp. J. Hall Resol. & Decisions iii. ii. 235.
• 1652 - "Judiciall astrologie judicially condemned.", W. Rowland (title).
• 1765 - "Astrology is the pretended knack of telling fortunes by the stars.", A. Tucker Light of Nature II. 466.
• 1845 - "In astrology‥the heavens were divided into twelve parts or houses.", J. Saunders Cabinet Pict. Eng. Life 175.
• 1869 - "Yesterday‥a curious action for trespass was brought by a herbalist and astrologer‥illustrating the manner in which astrology flourishes in London at the present time.", Daily News 9 Dec.

— astrology, OED Online. September 2011. Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press. 22 October 2011

Emphasis mine. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Galileo, on the other hand, practiced Astrology Judiciall.. DS Belgium (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. How else would one get paid to do math and study the night sky in 1610? Name dropping Galileo as an astrologer outside a very specific historical context can be misleading. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You are telling me that he made a living with astrology, yet this isn't mentioned at all in Galileo Galilei? Hardly explains why the original papers we have were if I'm not mistaken, two horoscopes for himself and horoscopes for his daughters. I'm not a fan of people claiming scientific validity of their beliefs, but I'm much more opposed to people trying to minimize or hide certain historical or scientific facts to promote a simplistic view of science". This ideology is the worst that could happen to it, it creates the impression that science is about politics, or worse, is a surrogate religion.

We must promote the understanding of science, not merely the belief in it. It's one thing for an editor to try include stuff he thinks is true, it's quite another thing for editors to selectively exclude material they know to be true.

..."outside a very specific historical context can be misleading." That to me illustrates the problem. The above statements against astrology don't seem to need a specific historical context, do they? There's enough domains where[REDACTED] doesn't generally provide accurate information, I would hope the not-"social sciences" would be spared from that. Should we censor history for the unlikely chance that it will change even a single person's opinion about astrology? By all means take out claims of scientific evidence, but don't minimise the role it played in human history. , DS Belgium (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

To ArtifexMayhem - I thought the above references were interesting but they don't demonstrate widespread condemnation and your reply to DS Belgium suggests you are not seeing the full picture. Outside of what "very specific historical context"? The best context we have to show that men like Galileo and Kepler were sincere astrologers (though some still ignorantly pretend they were not) is the astrological work they did on their own charts and those of their family members. Was Galileo being paid when he cast the charts for his own daughters? Or for the rectification work he did on his own horoscope according to the animodar method of rectification? The same with Kepler - despite the hundreds of horoscopes we now have access to, some still suggest he probably only 'did it for the money'. But his private papers show he did personal charts on himself and family members. Not only that, but he wrote about these charts in letters to his closest friends, including one about how his son's chart described the illness that he had just died of. In circumstances such as this we can only assume sincerity in their practice of astrology - Galileo arranged his daughter's futures around traits described in their horoscopes, and no grieving father would discuss his son's recent death with regard to his horoscope flippantly. -- Zac Δ 17:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was not going for the 'they only did it for money' defense (obviously I did an extremely poor job of avoiding it). My point was actually in agreement with both of your comments. The misleading bit comes from conflating the science done with the astrology done. Of course the flip side of that, being a Galileo astrology denier, is just as bad. Apologies for my lack of forethought. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Western Astrology Duplicate Sentence

The sentence about western astrology being horoscopic was in this section twice, word for word. So I moved the references and put them after the first appearance of the sentence and deleted the duplicate entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster92 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Coaster92 (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Tropical/Sidereal Definitions

I added brief explanations of these terms to benefit readers who do not know the topic.Coaster92 (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Carlson claims

A consensus was reached on Sept. 27th (Noleander) by citing WP:PARITY on the allowable use of fringe and pseudoscientific sources, as follows:

There is a guideline on the topic of pseudoscience, which talks about special considerations to be used for pseudoscience related articles. That guideline has an entire section on reliability of sources for pseudoscience/fringe articles, namely WP:PARITY. That guideline states that the requirements for sourcing fringe topics in an article on a mainstream topic is very high, and fringe topics are usually omitted from mainstream articles; but in articles about the fringe topics themselves the standard is much lower, and it is okay to include sources that consider the pseudoscience to be genuine (but the sources should be clearly identified in the article itself). The guideline goes on to say that the threshold for criticism of fringe theories is correspondingly lower: any decent source may be used for criticism, even sources not in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, some of the suspect material you enumerate above can be included in this article, because the article is about the fringe theory.

In conformance to this consensus, I've placed criticism of Carlson's claims in the article. It clearly identifies the sources as fringe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken McRitchie (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY is not a policy, only a guideline. And consensus is very strong against using fringe sources in the science section of this article, whether identified or not. It simply has ZERO encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't use one guideline in a vacuum from other guidelines and policies. Without secondary sourcing establishing WP:WEIGHT for these assertions, these do not apply here. Declaring "consensus" based on the opinion of one person and against the opinion of the vast majority of the editors commenting is clearly in appropriate, if not nonsensical. Yobol (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly there have been other editors who support the inclusion of criticism as you can see by reading the above topics. I don't believe there was any consensus to not include it as you claim, especially for criticism. Criticism always has encyclopedic value. Ken McRitchie (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This criticism fails one of our core policies, namely WP:NPOV due to WP:UNDUE weight. Please establish that we need to give these criticisms any weight by showing us the independent, secondary sources which discuss them. Yobol (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that I posted a request at AN for closure of the RfC above on this page. Depending on how the close goes, that could help to settle this. --FormerIP (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here is the criticism certain editors are trying to revert out of the article:

Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to claims that the data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009).

Here we have three psychology professors criticizing a psychological experiment done by a 19-year-old physics student with no experience in psychology. It boggles the mind to think that the professors' (one of them of world renown) criticism violates neutral point of view and undue weight. Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If these criticisms are so profound and notable, they should be able to be found in independent, secondary sources, not just fringe journals. Yobol (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's take this apart. "Fringe" is not an antonym of "independent". A source you consider "fringe" can be just as independent as any other. As for secondary, well, why is that better than the primary source of a statement by Hans Eysenck? Unfortunately Eysenck is not with us. It would be interesting to know if he tried to write a criticism of Carlson in a more "respectable" venue and, if he did, what was the outcome. Or maybe he knew it wasn't even worth trying? As for the more specific and recent objections, the criterion should be that they address the original Carlson text and are verifiable, not the alleged standing of the place of publication. It's understandable that Misplaced Pages doesn't want original research; but it's quite another matter to exclude references that can lead readers to undertake their own examination of claims.Axel (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY does apply to this article as a whole. A separate article on Scientific views on astrology would be a different matter. The sources are clearly marked as "fringe" and the statements are factual, I see nothing wrong with including this passage. SLP (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." Debunking Carlson requires sources of equal or greater weight. In this context the sources provided have exactly zero weight. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Parity doesn't apply because the fringe sources are not discussed in independent peer-reviewed or academic sources, therefore there is no way of determining whether they have any weight. Eysenck's work was essentially self-published in the journal he founded and of which he was the editor-in-chief. Quoting him here would be dishonest anyway because it ignores the fact that Eysenck would later conclude that astrology has nothing of scientific value to offer. That's a major violation of WP:WEIGHT. Simply labelling a source as "fringe" is a pretty dishonest way of sneaking in sources that are unacceptable. We don't rely on "facts". We rely on information that appears in reliable independent sources, and for scientific information, this means mainstream peer-reviewed sources only. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please could you clarify details of Eysenck's Journal to which you are referring and is this relevant here? Robert Currey talk 02:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

We have to look at the context of these criticisms. It is unrealistic to expect analyses of a complex astrology experiment published in non-mainstream journals to receive attention from authors outside the field and therefore it is unreasonable to expect and require secondary sources in the circumstances. The published criticisms of three psychology professors including Professor Hans Eysenck, who are not astrologers and are therefore independent, is more than sufficiently notable. I don't believe that Misplaced Pages editors wish to interpret the rules so that we can all pretend that the Carlson experiment is faultless, when it is quite evidently not (and this is supported by 7 sources not self-published). The argument for withholding these strong and authoritative criticisms remains unconvincing and their removal was not done collaboratively with other editors. So it is time for a compromise that clearly states that these criticisms are "published in astrological and other fringe journals" so as to express the concerns of some editors on this. Robert Currey talk 02:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Special pleading will not work. If it is notable, it will be covered in independent, non-fringe sources. If it is not, it is not notable enough to give weight here. We don't give exemptions because you believe something should be in the article. Yobol (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Eysenck published this criticism in Gauquelin's non-peer-reviewed fringe journal instead of his own journal, PAID. This indicates that his own co-editors probably rejected it for publication. If something hasn't received attention from mainstream authors, then it's not notable, and shouldn't be mentioned at all. It's as simple as that. It just has no weight whatsoever. Like Yobol, I've told you before that special pleading is a useless tactic. Your proposed "compromise" is therefore unacceptable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How can it not be notable when the critics were notable (Eysenck, for example, was far more notable than Carlson). The disputed comment reveals just how significant these criticisms are. Vobidus, I have noticed that you frequently present your own speculations as if they are fact (as here, where you speculate on Eysenck's choice of publication), and also that you frequently speculate negatively about the motives of editors who are trying to create a balanced report of this. You need to stop thinking about what is unacceptable to you, and bring yourself in line with WP's aims to give an honest and verifiable report of all the relevant issues, which includes both sides where arguments exist. To leave the statement as it is, with the comment that “the testing clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis” whilst deliberately censoring the well established fact that Carlson’s testing was heavily criticized for being biased and flawed is to present untruths and lies. There is actually no WP policy which should be used to suppress relevant, verifiable information like this.-- Zac Δ 10:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

DV - You are again incorrect. This is not special pleading on two counts. First, I accept 'proper criticism' that these sources are considered 'fringe' and secondly, I am presenting justification for inclusion of the criticism made by three psychology professors. These are significant viewpoints and should not be excluded.

There is also something of a contradiction, reflecting your POV, where you attempt to rubbish the source of Eysenck's criticism as being `essentially self-published in the journal he founded and of which he was the editor-in-chief` when you thought that this journal had published his critical comments. When you discovered that it was not, you reversed your position by assuming that it was published in Astro-Psychological Problems (and in the Astrological Journal which you did not mention) because "his own co-editors probably rejected it for publication". You have to consider the more likely possibility that astrological research belongs in astrological journals. And astrological journals are considered pseudoscience because they publish astrological research containing both sceptical and supportive conclusions and this is the circular argument on which your entire case rests.

If you are now arguing that Eysenck believed that astrology has nothing of scientific value to offer, you have now made a case that Eysenck was not an 'adherent' and as an independent critical source, his comments on Carlson have even have greater weight and the argument for his exclusion is even weaker.

I agree with Zak's comments about notability of Carlson versus Eysenck. Professor Hans Eysenck represents mainstream academic scholarship, by any definition. Of course, it doesn't make him correct or a slave to conventional wisdom, but his notability and scientific credentials are sufficient for his comments on Carlson to be published as a secondary source - and "should not be excluded from the article" simply because it was published in an "alternative venue from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Misplaced Pages.". WP:PARITY

You write 'Simply labelling a source as "fringe" is a pretty dishonest way of sneaking in sources that are unacceptable.' The fringe label has been the crux of your argument - you now appear to suggest that this claim is not sufficient to protect Carlson. Given that your hard-line position on this appears to have resulted in a series of neutral editors abandoning this page, the blocking of one frustrated editor and that many current editors still disagree with you and that these changes were originally made without consensus or discussion, what kind of compromise can you propose to reflect the situation 'honestly'? Robert Currey talk 11:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I have protected this article from editing in order to stop the current edit-war. I have not set a duration for the protection. When there is a clear consensus of editors concerning the disputed section, request unprotection either at WP:RFUP or my talk page, including a link to the resolution of the dispute. If there is difficulty reaching agreement, consider trying the procedures suggested at Misplaced Pages:Dispute Resolution, for example, starting a Request for Comment. CIreland (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Towards consensus

Thank you, CIreland, for allowing us to gather ourselves here after what once again seems to be a futile effort to bring the vastly differing views together. This topic has been controversial due to a single issue, and the controversy has prevented editors from collaborating on it in a positive manner for some time. Enormous resources have been used to basically fight various battles in a war over this question, leading to nowhere but frustration on both sides. This overriding problem concerns the scientific treatment of astrology. I will venture to say that the two sides representing the views that astrology is pseudoscience on one hand and that it is not pseudoscience on the other will not come to consensus any time soon. Regardless of what is achieved now with respect to Carlson, consensus will not be sustained for a long time, as evidenced by numerous occasions in the past on other topics of contention. All of these fights can be traced back to the single issue of pseudoscience or not. Therefore, long-term success here can only be achieved one way: The scientific treatment of astrology needs to be taken out of the main article and developed as a separate article, with proper references to it here. While this solution doesn't eliminate the point of contention, it will at least allow us to collaborate on the main article in a meaningful and positive way. When there exists a proper main article, the weight of edit warring on one of its supporting articles is not as heavy as a war being fought on the main article itself. SLP (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It would still need to be summarized in the lead here, and that's where much of the fighting has been. — kwami (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A summary is not as specific as an article, however, and consensus wording is easier to reach on the summary. We need to isolate the contentious area as much as possible to be able to move forward with the rest of the article. As is, one simple issue is holding up the entire project. SLP (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no way that it is representing each view in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint (WP:WEIGHT) to have one paragraph about a study published in Nature, which lest I remind you, is probably the most prestigious journal anywhere, and then one paragraph about fringe theorists self-publishing rebuttals. One paragraph about the study rebutted by one sentence would work - that sentence should make it clear that the rebuttals have never been reliably published. Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be fuller development of the issue of scientific research in a separate article. In the meantime, here is a one sentence solution, which can be included at the end of the preceding parapgraph:

Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals, with arguments ranging from faulty design and conclusion (Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008)) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favouring the astrologers (Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)).

One point to bear in mind, Nature did not hold to its current standards 30 years ago, when the Carlson study was published, without the proper evaluation that would be expected today. The journal's current status makes it impossible to get criticism of older research such as this published in Nature. Its criteria for publication today is that any articles or letters must a) report original scientific research (the main results and conclusions must not have been published or submitted elsewhere) b) be of outstanding scientific importance, and c) reach a conclusion of interest to an interdisciplinary readership. Though the criticism of Carlson appears to be a matter of great importance to this page, it is hardly a matter of outstanding scientific importance, which is of interest to an interdisciplinary readership. That does not mean that the rebuttals made by at least three notable academics have not been reliably published. -- Zac Δ 15:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not a sentence, it's the entire paragraph squished into a run-on sentence. Given that the "notable academics" were only published in self-published or otherwise unreliable journals, it's not appropriate to summarize their unreliable conclusions. One concise sentence, summarizing, not laying out every single objection. Finally, regarding nature in the 1970s? You are full of it. Nature was as prestigious then as it is now. Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

SLP: your the two sides representing the views that astrology is pseudoscience on one hand and that it is not pseudoscience on the other is fundamentally misconceived. We already have an arbcomm decision that it *is* pseudoscience. There is no need to discuss that issue, and anyone editing here should do so in conformance with the arbcomm decision: which is to say, either accept that it is pseudoscince, or edit it in a manner that doesn't comment on its P-nature William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

At issue is not whether astrology is pseudoscience or not. The point of contention exists regardless of what the 'truth' of the matter is or WP's official position. My point is that the conflict between editors representing the two sides will not go away, and any consensus we might reach on the wording of Carlson will be short lived. The only real solution is to separate out the part of the main article that keeps infecting it into a properly referenced sub. Anything short of that will put us back into this battlefield in no time without any hope for constructively collaborating on the article. SLP (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to respond in kind Hipocrite, but my comment concerned Nature's standards. Do you really believe it would regard the Carlson study as fit for publication and meeting its criteria for publication today? I'm sure you realise it would not. And the suggested sentence is as summarised as it can be unless essential information is omitted. For what reason would any editor object to this very brief comment which summarises the reasons for the notable rebuttals? Regardless of where the rebuttals were published, criticisms carry weight when the reputations of the critics carry weight. -- Zac Δ 16:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nature is able to post retractions - even years after the first article. CF: . Beyond that, please don't assume that I agree with you about the Carlson study - instead, assume that I, like the vast majority of the world, consider Nature the single most prestigious scientific journal in the world, and take things published and not retracted or disputed by other reliable sources to be right, and consider true-believers in astrology to be wrong. I object to "this very brief comment," because it is almost as long as the Carlson study, which is far more notable, and far more reliable. Further, per WP:UNDUE, criticisms carry only the weight of the prominence of each viewpoint - and as you are well aware, the prominence of the viewpoint that Astrology is useful is a very, very minority viewpoint.

Are you prepared to compromise, or are you only willing to accept exactly what you have written - which is exactly what was edit-warred into the article? Would you accept "Supporters of astrology contend that the Carlson study was flawed (ref,ref,ref)? Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best solution, Hipocrite, although better than implying that astrology journals can be matched against Nature. Would rather that Eysenck was mentioned - a prominent psychologist - and no others. By the way, have people seen the letter that a science professor at Ohio State had published in Nature in 2007, referring to Carlson's refutation as definitive? Note that it is an informal and chatty letter, not a report of a scientific breakthrough. If it is absolutely certain that Carlson's work is rubbish, then it should be possible to get a paper to that effect, if not into Nature, at least into a medium-status stats journal. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrit, why are you talking about the prominence of the viewpoint that astrology is useful? That's not at all relevant to this issue - if it were, what the studies have shown (according to reliable scientific publications) is not that it "is a very, very minority viewpoint" as you suggest, but that a very significant percentage of the population holds some kind of belief in it ("Belief in pseudoscience is widespread. For example, at least a quarter of the U.S. population believes in astrology, i.e., that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives ... the figure is higher in Europe" see here). So let's forget that angle, because it's not a sensible way to establish the weight of the criticisms, either for or against.

We simply need to report notable criticisms and notable arguments according to what the published sources state, objectively - being careful not to load our comments with unfounded speculations - like your suggestion that those who look at the issues critically are "true-believers in astrology", or that the notable academics who have done independent assessments of the Carlson results are "supporters of astrology". This is not the case, and to suggest they were following their own beliefs rather than assesing the data critically would be wrong. It is not supportable and would be using WP to cast negative aspersions on men with well established academic reputations.

In my opinion there should not have been any kind of edit-war over this, since the remark is relevant, verified, reliable, and reduced of any kind of inflated significance. Perhaps other editors need to be reminded of what was originally reported on this (below). Compare with the above proposal to understand how much the reporting of this issue has already been pulled back to the briefest reference possible - unless we deliberately leave out the names of the academics who have been involved in the criticisms, (even though this is the reason why the criticisms are notable) and pretend the criticisms were only issued by "true-believers of astrology". Again, why would any editor want this? I'm genuinely asking because I don't understand - are we supposed to imagine that the scientific viewpoint is in any way threatened by the fact that Carlson study was not free of notable criticism, and so it is in the interest of science to report the facts disingeniously? Let's just be sensible and report what deserves to be reported without making such a big deal out of it -- Zac Δ 17:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Initially, the Carlson experiment was criticized as having a biased design that made the astrologers' tasks more difficult than they needed to be, but deeper flaws in method and analysis emerged. Carlson had disregarded his own stated criteria of evaluation, grouped data into irrelevant categories, rejected unexpected results without reporting them, and drew an illogical conclusion based on the null hypothesis. When the stated measurement criterion was applied, and the published data was evaluated according to the normal conventions of the social sciences, the two tests performed by the participating astrologers provided significant evidence (astrologers' ranking test p = .054 with ES = .15, and astrologers' rating test p = .037 with ES = .10), despite the unfair design, of their ability to successfully match CPIs to natal charts. Observers have called for more detailed and stringent double-blind experiments.

I will not allow you to grow the Overton Window. Your assumptions and aspersions about my motivations and actions are highly problematic, and I'd like you to take a close look through what you've just written and judiciously retract. The earlier paragraph was an embarrassing disgrace - an embarrassing disgrace that was allowed to fester in this article for months. We are discussing if you get to inflate the notoriety of the semi-published and unpublished criticisms of the reliably published and definitive Nature study by naming a bunch of people without noting they are Astrologers or Astrological fellow travelers - we are not even considering returning the unthinkable language that the unrefuted Nature study was refuted. I consider the following sentence as far as I would be willing to bend - "Defenders of astrology, including Hans Eysenck contend that the Carlson study was flawed (ref,ref,ref)." I also must insist that we remove the Vidmar ref, unless we ID him as an astrologer, as he "has also given 3000 astrology counseling sessions." Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just read this, a science blog post on the topic. Blog, yes, but RS in relation to Ertel and the other astrology defenders publishing in fringe sources. Note the clarification of Eysenck's criticism. If Eysenck is right that astrologers can't judge CPI, then the study's usefulness falls away, but not on statistical grounds. This is no vindication whatever of astrology. Note the clearly statement of the blindingly obvious, that the Carlson's exercise gives no reason to reject the null hypothesis. And Ken McRitchie has the gall to turn up here trying to spam his own pseudo-research into the encyclopedia. Enough is enough. No statistician has criticised Carlson's statistical methods. A paper in Nature is a source of the highest quality, even if critiqued by other scholars, unless it is formally retracted. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - I have responded to your comment "Ken McRitchie has the gall to turn up here trying to spam his own pseudo-research into the encyclopedia." on your talk page. Robert Currey talk 19:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this was my original issue with the article. Using fringe sources to contradict what is one the most respected publication in science is totally unacceptable. This has nothing to do with the "scientific viewpoint" being threatened, it is a matter of how a reputable ought to frame this type of debate. I don't have problem with a brief mention that proponents of astrology have questioned the results, but it needs to end there. The current wording in the article is not going to work. --Daniel 18:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The only way that the "scientific viewpoint" could be threatened here is if we misrepresent the scientific evidence from real scientists. I agree that Nature is highly prestigious, but also that the editor in 1985, Sir (but not Dr) John Maddox, evidently had many attributes but he was not infallible or successful in separating personal bias from objectivity and was not averse to using Nature to advance his strong personal beliefs. For example, in 1983, his editorial in Nature "No need for panic about AIDS" suggested that male homosexuals should change their ways of "pathetic promiscuity" and described AIDS as "perhaps a non-existent condition". Rather than treat Nature as gospel, editors have to use some judgement relating to the circumstances. Obviously his editorial was not peer reviewed, though there are some unanswered questions relating to Carlson's peer review and how the experiment managed to get into Nature, which I can go into, though it will not advance a compromise.

CSICOP of which Maddox was a fellow, was not infallible either. CSICOP at that time, was a pseudoscientific organisation and as those who have followed these discussions will know had, according to a co-founder and other members, a history of tampering with astrological data to get favoured results . CSICOP was, according to the chairman at the time, Kurtz, the sceptical organisation behind the Carlson experiment.

The proposal to use the terms "Defenders of astrology, including Hans Eysenck ... " is constructive but incorrect as according to D.Vobisdu, Eysenck was not a defender of astrology. Nor would it apply to Ertel as he successfully debunked Gauquelin's earlier tests having found sampling errors which he later eliminated in subsequent research. However, having given 3,000 astrological counselling sessions, (which seems rather excessive if it is for "research purposes only") Vidmar could be classified as a defender of astrology. I am wondering if, in the spirit of reaching a compromise, it would break the deadlock if Vidmar was dropped from the quote, leaving the criticism from two sources and therefore reducing the weight of the published criticism (from seven sources). Robert Currey talk 22:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal, to keep all of the text you edit-warred in removing exactly two words and one reference is not demonstrative of good faith. I do not believe it is appropriate to detail the fringy unverifiable arguments presented by true-believers, and I don't think that your proposed "compromise," actually compromises at all. Hipocrite (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite, as you have reverted edits more frequently on the Astrology page since you appeared on 3rd October than I have, it is not accurate to tell me "you edit-warred" rather than we edit-warred if you insist on labelling editors in this way. Also, I assume you are not referring to Professors Eysenck and Ertel as true-believers as they are evidently not. So you must be suggesting that I and other editors are 'true-believers'. Further to the comments by Ken McRitchie below, I can confirm that I am too much of a sceptic to accept anything including astrology or religion or claims by big Pharma or even claims by Nature based on belief. Yet, I would not be surprised if it turned out that your opinions on these subjects are based on beliefs rather than evidence though I am sure you would not like to be described as an astrology-denier. Lastly to address your point, if we are to measure the comments in quantity rather than in quality, we should consider that the criticism of Carlson will have shrunk from 139 words to 44 words. Robert Currey talk 00:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't been following the discussions too closely lately. Am I to understand that the issue here is that astrologists have published rebuttals to the Nature article but no secondary sources have picked up on the rebuttals? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Scientists, who are not astrologers, have published criticism. I don't believe there are True Believers in this discussion any more than there are True Disbelievers. That sort of language is not helpful when trying to reach compromise. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is such a genuine linguistic distinction, but it may be helpful to distinguish people who practice astrology "astrologers" from people who believe in it "astrologists". --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen this "new" word until recent years. Because it is not what astrologers call themselves, I think it is intended to be a pejorative characterization, a sort of converse of astrologaster (fraudulent astrologer). It would be better if editors seeking consensus in this discussion would drop any sort of negative characterizations. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In this discussion, the scientific viewpoint favours the published critics of Carlson’s experiment because they are:-

1. More notable: Hans Eysenck – world-renowned psychologist v a student
2. More qualified: 3 professors v an undergraduate.
3. More independent: Excluding astrologers who arguably have COI, 2 professors were critical of astrological research v the backing of CSICOP (a discredited pseudoscientific group).
4. More numerous: seven published critics without refutation or support for Carlson’s conclusions.
5. All from appropriate fields of expertise: psychology &/or astrology v physics

While Nature is a prestigious science journal, there were serious questions about the editor, John Maddox’s involvement with Carlson’s experiment when he had a conflict of interest due to his position within CSICOP who were behind the experiment. Maddox also had a history of using his publication to further his personal beliefs.

While Carlson’s critics are published in fringe journals or a book (not self-published), this is an article on a fringe topic so we must allow for WP:PARITY. “Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Misplaced Pages.”

Though this background can all be verified, it can be cut out and reduced to one simple sentence reporting the criticism in an accurate but minimal way.

Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in several astrological and other fringe journals, with arguments ranging from faulty design and conclusion from Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favouring the astrologers from Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009).

Robert Currey talk 17:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything you have written is complete claptrap, a veritable study in logical fallacies: appeal to authority, Appeal to accomplishment, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, non sequitur and, most of all, argumentum ad nauseam. Nothing you have written is relevant at all to the question at hand.

The fact that Carlson was an undergraduate has no relevance whatsoever to the validity of his study. In science, the value of any study is judged on its own merits, not on the reputation of its author, or lack thereof. Carlson's study was found to be meritorious by peer review to be published in one of the most reputable journals there is. No criticism of it has ever been published in peer-reviewed sources.

Eysenck's reputation likewise counts for nothing. The fact that he is recognized for his work in other fields is completely irrelevant to the question of the validity of his criticism. His criticism did not pass peer-review, and was published in a fringe sham "journal" of zero scientific reputablity. It has never been cited in peer-reviewed publications, and is therefore not notable. The same goes for all of the other critics you mention.

The field of expertise of an author likewise has nothing to do with the merits of their research. You lose that one anyway, because physicists have an impecable reputation for conducting rigorous scientific work. Better than psychologists, in any case.

There is no recognized field of science called "astrology". A bunch of clowns pretending to be "scientific" and "scholarly", founding sham "academic" societies and publishing fake "journals" is still a bunch of clowns.

Claiming that Carlson was unqualified because he lacked expertise in astrology is a classic example of special pleading. Another logical fallacy.

Your comments on CSI have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of Carlson's study. Ditto your comments about the editor of Nature. Worthless red-herring arguments.

Seven articles in sham "journals" criticizing Carlson's study means a score of zero to one in favor of Carlson. A hill of nothing is still nothing.

You are cherry-picking when you quote WP:PARITY. The guideline clearly states that only reliable sources are to be used, and that fringe "journals" of the type you mention are definitely not reliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I'd like to point out that using these fringe sources to criticize the Carlson study is waste of time even if we did consider them RS. Even if the Carlson study was flawed, astrology passes or fails based on its own merit, and so far there is no evidence to suggest that it is passing the bar of evidence. It's not like astrology would suddenly have merit if the Carlson study was never done, because if something like astrology was valid then there should be tons of evidence, as it makes a very testable claim. Furthermore, even for things that we now know are BS, there have been anomalous studies that show correlation or causation - this is part of science and this is why studies are replicated. We need to look at the bigger picture here, which is that even if Carlson is flawed, there is nothing substantiating the claim that astrology has merit and we would be doing our readers a disservice if we imply that there's contention in any part of the scientific community. Nformation 22:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Noformation - you are right - this isn't about astrology being 'proved'. This is about reporting test results accurately and fairly. Anyone who has studied the papers will know that Carlson's handling of the data and conclusion was wrong. However, statistical significance can occur randomly or can be due to an as yet unknown, artefact. This is why it's hard to understand why some editors are so passionate that the criticism is withheld. We must simply report the results to date and update them as criticism and new results come in - even if they are published in an astrological journal. Robert Currey talk 00:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Eysenck's conclusion was that the Carlson study was inconclusive. In no way can this be construed as "support" for astrology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Eysenck was long into his retirement when he started taking an interest in astrology. By that time he was already a controversial figure, and his work hasn't particularly stood the test of time. His argument against Carlson is partly based on the usability of the personality index that he had developed. This doesn't reflect badly on Carlson, who used the best personality index available at the time. But if all personality indices are disputable constructions, let us say for the sake of argument that they are rubbish, then Carlson's study compares rubbish (horoscopes) with rubbish (personality index) and finds ... that there is no correlation, i.e. none better than chance. Predictable, or what? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu, if you are working towards consensus with the other editors, you must stop poisoning the well with comments such as characterizing the professors who authored the critical articles as "a bunch of clowns" and numerous other toxic comments. We have had some neutral editors who have left because of this sort of abuse by you and others. Please refrain from this behavior. It is not unconscionable to allow peer criticism of any published article, even those published in Nature, when the criticism is based on the evidence published in the article itself. You should appeal to reason and evidence, not to belief. Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You're too loosely using the term "peer" here. In high school, your peers are those who are in your school and within a certain age range. On the internet, peers are those with whom you share illegal software. In science it's other scientists in the relevant field whose standards of research are to a high enough level to be published in high impact journals. Fringe journals are like a real life version of a POV fork. If the majority of stuff that appeared in fringe journals had enough merit, they would be published in non-fringe journals. Fringe journals are, by definition, the stuff that's not fit for publishing elsewhere. Astrology is no exception to this, because let me tell you: if you were to conduct an impeccable study that showed a statistically significant correlation between astrological ideas and reality, you would pretty much immediately become the most famous scientist in the world - the guy who proved astrology - and you would be published in the journal of your choosing. There is a really good reason that this has never happened. Nformation 23:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

DV - Reciting a list of logical fallacies is argumentum ad nauseam.

“Claiming that Carlson was unqualified because he lacked expertise in astrology is a classic example of special pleading. Another logical fallacy.” This is not what I wrote. If it was, you could have said that Eysenck and Ertel’s lack of expertise in astrology should have ruled them out. It was the fact that Carlson’s studies were in physics and not psychology or the social sciences that was a problem identified by both Eysenck and Vidmar. There is nothing wrong with the way physicists conduct experiments. However, what works in one field does not automatically translate into another. For example, Carlson used an equivalent p value of .006 as a measure of significance which might be appropriate for a physics experiment. However, in social sciences involving human behaviour, a p value of .05 is a customary threshold. Setting an unreasonable target put the astrologers at a disadvantage. This and many other basic errors should have been picked up at peer review and would have been in Correlation.

My comments were about CSICOP and not CSI – where the claim to be scientific has been sensibly dropped.

If your argument in favour of censoring all criticism of Carlson’s test is based on your claim that Nature "is one of the most reputable journals that there is”, then you have to be willing to address criticism that it is fallible. This occurred when the editor was involved in an experiment where he had a conflict of interest and he had a cringe-making habit of using the journal to promote his personal beliefs.

While you may disagree with parity of sources, it is quite clear that in this type of article we cannot reject astrological or related fringe journals, on the grounds that they are not typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Misplaced Pages. There is no point expecting criticism to magically appear in unrelated mainstream science journals as these alternative venues are where astrology is reliably and verifiably reported on and criticised. However, you seek to bypass this policy as it bankrupts your case for keeping criticism out of the article. I know several neutral editors have pointed this out to you in particular - they were right, we have to work within Misplaced Pages's guidelines not re-interpret them. Robert Currey talk 00:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line for me is that we report what is relevant, factual, and easily verifiable; not personal POV. The phrase Robert Currey proposes meets the criteria - there is nothing that is not relevant, factual or verifiable in it. Of course it doesn't validate astrology - the comment in no way suggests that astrology is validated. That's why it works -- Zac Δ 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• My contribution was solicited by an WP:RS/N posting and I am a regular Reliable sourcing contributor. FRINGE sources should not be included when High Quality Reliable Sources such as articles in Nature are available. FRINGE sources that criticise HQRS should be excluded from articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to see how the two streams of arguments are diverging as they gather momentum... and slowly but surely they are forming a gigantic wave of consensus in the sky. SLP (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Converging? Moriori (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, diverging in non-Euclidean space. SLP (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that Jimbo's opinion is officially worth more than any other editor, but I think he's certainly knowledgeable on WP policy and well versed in determining the R of an S, and this is his take on this issue: "To be clear on my view. Based on this conversation, it seems abundantly clear that SciEx is completely and utterly useless as a source for anything serious at all. People who publish such things, and participate in such things, should be ashamed of themselves. The Journal may have some value as a source, if it is influential amongst crackpots, to document the sort of nonsense that they are willing to publish while pretending to academic standards.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)" Nformation 03:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

None of these three journals (Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration) have been listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge database. That means that these journals are simply not scientific, and should be considered as self-published sources. By pretending that these sources have equal weight with the publication in such a top ranked journal as Nature we simply discredit Misplaced Pages as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to concede that one of the articles we discuss is authored by one of the most famous and reputable psychologists (Hans Eysenck), although this field does not belong to the area of Eysenk's expertise. We probably can include Eysenk's opinion, however, it is quite necessary to specify that this opinion belongs to the psychologist (although to the most famous one). With regard to other authors, I believe the users who added these sources should explain us why these persons are notable enough to warrant mention of their opinions published in non-scientific journals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim "This field does not belong to the area of Eysenk's expertise" is untrue. If you read the Misplaced Pages article on Eysenck you will see the following:

Eysenck made early contributions to fields such as personality by express and explicit commitment to a very rigorous adherence to scientific methodology, as Eysenck believed that scientific methodology was required for progress in personality psychology. He used, for example, factor analysis, a statistical method, to support his personality model.

The CPI, used by Carlson, is a personality test that includes in its profiles factors and methods based on research developed by Eysenck.

If you read the Carlson article you can see the problems that critics have pointed out. For example, Carlson, going against his own stated protocol, draws attention to the last choice in the ranking test and erroneously concludes that the first and second choices were no better than chance. However if you do the math, the first and second choices were marginally significant and the astrologers win. In the rating test, a completely independent test, Carlson incorrectly groups the results according to the ranking test, but there is no dependency and no connection. The making of this false connection is brilliantly hidden in the figure captions, which readers tend not to scrutinize. When evaluated in entirety without regard to the bogus groups, the results of the ranking test are significant and the astrologers win. In the control group rating test, the control group is surprisingly able to choose the correct CPIs with a highly significant accuracy, while the test group fails. Carlson calls this a statistical anomaly. But the results of the ranking test, which could corroborate whether the control test results were (inadvertently) switched, are thrown out because Carlson says he could not be certain that the test subjects followed his instructions (as they had in all his other tests). In view of the circumstances, this is not a plausible reason for not presenting the data of this test. There is much more like this. Anyone who reads the Carlson article should be highly skeptical and refuse to take his conclusions at face value. The data presented in the article actually supports the astrologers.

Why should this criticism be suppressed no matter where it is published? Rawlins published in Fate Magazine and that led to the downfall of CSICOP. The journal Nature is not an idol to be blindly worshiped without question, and all critics cast out as heretics. Think about it. How can science be threatened by critical thinking and improvements in science literacy? Ken McRitchie (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I might add that scientists are not immune to being duped, as Randi has aptly demonstrated. This is especially true in areas where there are low stakes and very little sustained interest in the subject. If you want real criticism, you go where the interest lies. Ken McRitchie (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not how Misplaced Pages works. It is not the job of editors to analyze sources in the way that you're asking. We have sourcing guidelines for this, as well as other, reasons. Even if we all agreed that the criticisms made sense (which we do not), it would not be permissible to use those them without them being published in an RS. Your entire arguments hinges on your take on the WP:TRUTH and not on any WP policy. Nformation 05:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. This IS how Misplaced Pages works and it is not special pleading. It is to make you feel good about WP:PARITY and WP:NPOV. Ken McRitchie (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Nature magazine is definitely not the idol, however, if you want to criticise it you must provide a reliable source for that. An opinion of one of the most cited psychologist can be used as a support for the claim that the Carlson's article contained some methodological flaws (although the fact that it was published in a garbage journal adds no credibility to it), however, other two sources are not reliable, and you are supposed to explain us why the opinions of two authors with unknown notability, published in non-scientific journals, deserves mention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Next step?

Given the above and in light of talk page history; I have grave doubts we can arrive at consensus via informal methods (I might be wrong...maybe).

• Best next step: RfC or WP:DRN or other? Please be try and be brief. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've started an RfC. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Society, sports, and culture Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Some editors at Astrology believe that it is appropriate to add the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature: ]):

"Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)".

The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration. It is agreed that those sources lack substantial authority outside of Astrological circles. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. If they were serious criticisms, then the authors should have no trouble getting their objections published in equally respected journals, at the very least in the correspondence sections. Fringe journals say a lot of weird things, and just identifying a source as fringe is not enough to work it into an article by any means. It is not our place to analyze the studies ourselves, in our roles as[REDACTED] editors. siafu (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose current phrasing; the position is deeply fringe so it's not neutral to say "One researcher says X; other people say not-X". I might support if there were alternative wording which gives appropriate weight & credibility to each side; neutral coverage of astrology's predictive ability could, hopefully, reflect the fact that some people still defend it - but it must also reflect the fact that their arguments are not taken seriously by the scientific mainstream. bobrayner (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion, per Siafu. Also, if the material is retained, the titles "Professor" should be deleted, per WP:CREDENTIAL which says: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name.". --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion, per Siafu. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For Siafu and those following Siafu, please note that this RfC does not IMO fairly represent the arguments in several ways. Editors should follow the thread to understand the background. The argument about authors being able to get "their objections published in equally respected journals" has been addressed a few times here and as stated in WP:PARITY "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Misplaced Pages" This is the case with research into astrology, not because of the quality of the research or the credentials of the researchers but the nature of the subject. Robert Currey talk 17:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct, Robert. There are a number of reliable secondary sources that could be used instead. --FormerIP (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This debate also does not appear to be so much about sources the study of astrology in general as it is about the criticism of a particular peer-reviewd paper that came out in a scientific journal. Criticisms to that paper, if they are to be taken seriously, should rise to at least similar levels of notability or verifiability. The policy you are quoting is in regards to subjects that are not discussed in mainstream journals, and we should not expect to find, e.g., distinctions in and arguments between different schools of "Creation Science" in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This objection does not fit in this case. It is also somewhat ironic that the text of WP:PARITY makes it clear that it was intended to allow for non-peer reviewed criticisms of fringe theories (the cited example is criticisms of moon landing conspiracy theories) into articles covering those fringe theories, and you are applying it in reverse here. siafu (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Any mention of the criticisms mentioned as none of the criticisms have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and all of the "journals" in which they were published are clearly fringe, they should not be used at all to challenge a real scientific study. WP:PARITY explicitly states that fringe journals are not to be considered reliable sources, and that only reliable sources are to be used. The criticisms are furthermore not noteworthy of inclusion in the article because they have not been discussed in reliable sources, and are not in any way part of genuine scientific discourse. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: I am very cynical about peer reviews, fringe or otherwise, because I have seen too many examples of abuses and incompetence. However, the mainstream work sooner or later runs into inconvenient facts and if its conclusions are unsound all's well and ends. It even may end well. Conversely there is a shaking out of the rubbish, whether anyone notices, or whether the thesis ends its existence anonymously on some uncritical garbage pile. Peer review of meaningless rubbish however, is a far trickier thing. Astrology, homeopathy, and a job lot of other work that has "survived peer review" or "met statistical criteria" etc has a large number of imponderables. It is no good applying stats to data concerning ambiguous or meaningless claims. If I am permitted to do that, I can prove statistically that goobles wurble whenever one cages a sage in the flowering season, and do so with a significance of better than 0.0001. And I could get peers to review it too. These astrological peer-reviewed travesties might or might not be statistically significant, and they might be meaningful or not, but to the extent that they are meaningful they are not significant, and to the extent that they are significant, they are not meaningful. Remember what Pauli said: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" Not just extraordinary claims need extraordinary support, incoherent claims do too. It is only reasonable to demand that they demonstrate that the experimental design, execution, analysis, and above all, implications, be exposed to closer and more demanding examination than more routine work. There is more to the value of peer review than waving a sheet of paper with the claims and names of the reviewers. At any rate, that is what my peers say. JonRichfield (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Objection to the phrasing of the RFC, which can only yield one answer. A similar RFC can also be opened to question the presentation of Carlson's research before the page was locked, and you will be able to show that no consensus exists on that either. The only RFC that is valid with respect to Carlson is one that puts forth a complete phrasing on the issue. Your comments within the RFC are also heavily biased, which will influence the outcome. Consequently, I will not support this RFC in any shape or form regardless of the outcome. SLP (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Making a blanket statement that you will not honor the community consensus, regardless of what it is, is probably not going to be helpful to you or your position, and throws up a major red flag in terms of your ability to engage in[REDACTED] productively. I would suggest rephrasing the question yourself, right here, instead, as being a rather more productive avenue. siafu (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of what I have said. I will not support this RFC - this has nothing to do with "honoring community consensus". The rest of your argument is not relevant for this reason. SLP (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I was about to say the same thing as Saifu. I'll also point out that the original RfC is not without context and includes a link to past discussion. I have enough good faith to assume that editors commenting on this issue have read into it, and are not blindly agreeing with Dominus without considered opinions of their own. If you disagree with Dominus' assessment, the correct avenue is to either present alternate arguments in opposition to his, or to propose an alternate phrasing with a clear explanation of what issues the new phrasing corrects. Saying you refuse to accept community consensus without first making any effort to correct these perceived problems is bad form.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Same comment to your comment. Arguments resulting from misrepresentation have no relevance. You also do not understand my position with respect to reaching consensus, which does not include RFCs at this point for stated reasons. SLP (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Please do not change my signature, play with your own. SLP (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your removal. The SPA tag is wholly appropriate in an RfC when an editor who meets the criteria lends their opinion. This is not to reflect poorly on you as an editor, but rather it allows the reviewing admin to take into account what might be relevant to your contribution. If it's not then it's not big deal, but if it is and it's not posted then it doesn't give the review admin all the information s/he may need. Also, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of your "signature," it just happens to be at the end of your post, but not in your sig. Nformation 02:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose To using this phrasing or another, per the reasons I have given previously. It essentially boils down to the idea that it would be improper to use non-reliable sources to criticize reliable sources. Fringe journals publish what can't be published elsewhere because it wouldn't meet real scientific scrutiny. Any mention of the opinion of these journals to criticize Nature would be a serious NPOV violation, specifically DUE, as well as an RS problem. Nformation 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is clearly undue weight to the fringe journals, so it shouldn't be included in the article. Abhishikt (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't yet seen a convincing reason not to include Carlson's research on the page, and simply because it is included is absolutely not justification to reflect jumbled criticisms from fringe sources. High quality sourcing is available on this topic, so WP:Parity doesn't apply, and per WP:DUE, including a paragraph from fringe astrological journals in equal size to our summary of Nature is inappropriate. I don't necessarily object to including a very short summary that "Astrologers disagree", if it is really necessary, but as of yet I don't see why it would be; obviously they disagree - that's why we have this page, and indicate people still believe in Astrology. Unless a convincing argument is presented otherwise, keep the Carlson paper, and ditch the fringe criticisms.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right in the sense that "Astrologers disagree" with Carlson's conclusions - though that statement invites the comment - they would, wouldn't they? The case for the criticisms of Carlson is stronger than that. If you follow the threads you will see that in this instance, two of the psychology professors Eysenck and Ertel cited are not astrologers and have both been critical of astrological research so it would be possible to write "Scientists disagree..." or "Psychologists disagree ...". Robert Currey talk 23:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as I have said previously, this is undue weight to fringe sources. This sort of wording while better than what I initially removed, still presents these arguments as near equal in terms of credibility. Nature is one of the most respected science publications, contradicting it with fringe source even while stating that the fact they they are fringe is still a problem. --Daniel 19:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. IMO, if criticism is fringe, we cannot devote any space to it. The first sentence ("Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals.") is quite sufficient, otherwise we have a ridiculous and unacceptable situation when the mainstream views (Carlson) are being discussed in lesser details than the fringe sources that criticise them. Alternatively, we can refer only to the opinion of Eysenck, who is notable enough to be explicitly mentioned. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I have additionally reworded the RFC to prevent any arguments that it was not worded neutrally. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but I fear it was too late. Also, it would have been better to have left the quote to stand alone without the additional spin "It is agreed that those sources lack substantial authority outside of Astrological circles." This comment leads other editors and leaving it out would encourage these editors to read the threads and make their own judgement. Robert Currey talk 23:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Snow Oppose. AstroNOMers of the world UNITE! Rational thinkers abandoned astrological explanations centuries ago. Try as they might, astrologers are unable to systematize their claims and evidence, and every single astrological hypothesis that has been scrutinized has been duly rejected and falsified enough to make all claims of scientific validity a pathological science. The credentialism being exhibited here is amusing, but irrelevant: a psychology professor pretending that the orientation of the Earth, sun, moon, planets and celestial sphere has any impact on human traits, interactions, or one-off events beyond that those that can be attributed to calendrical variation (yes, it is colder in the Northern Hemisphere in the month of December than it is in the month of June so your mother was more likely to be wearing more clothes when she gave birth to you in December than your friend's mother who gave birth in June) is not a reliable source for a very straightforward reason: the psychology professor is incorrect where the claims can be compared to evidence and otherwise is not even wrong. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No such claim is being made by any of the three psychology professors. Please show that you have read the thread over the past month, before commenting. Robert Currey talk 21:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with reading comprehension. It seems to me that the fact that astrology is rank pseudoscience as seen in practically every last non-major introductory astronomy textbook on the market should be more prominently described in this article and the fact that its champions have difficulty publishing in journals that are on par with where their critics have been published means that, unfortunately for the believers in hokum, that's the verifiable and reliable facts on the ground. The nonsense about pseudoscientists trying to prove that astrology is true or their wool-over-the-eyes critiques of people who point out the bleeding obvious (that astrology cannot possibly be true) is not worthy of inclusion or even discussion in the text of an article on this subject. Modern astrology is bunk so say the experts who are in the know. That's what Misplaced Pages should report and the protestations of those JSE and authors published in fake-journals should be excluded until they can get their act together. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the RfC is worded properly. This content is currently in the article, so the question should be "Should we remove it?", not "Should we add it?". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The status-quo on this article lasted for over a month, and did not include the content. The correct question, therefore, is "should we add it?" Hipocrite (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a better way to have phrased this RfC would have been the following:

Should our article on Astrology contain the following text in the Carlson's experiment section:

"Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)".

The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration. It is agreed that those sources lack substantial authority outside of Astrological circles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, we have an article about Hans Eysenck. There should be a wikilink to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see that an editor has objected to the sentence beginning with "It is agreed that those sources lack substantial authority..." so maybe that shouldn't be there either. I'm not sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

• RfC comment: Oppose inclusion of the proposed changes as phrased. However, that does not imply and should not be see as implying that the inclusion of the information in some way and at some (possibly shorter) length is unacceptable. I concur with others that there might be some problems with the phrasing of the RfC above. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• RfC Comment I don't believe that an RfC is at all appropriate in this discussion and this RfC has been mishandled to the extent that it is now irretrievably bungled for the following reasons:

1. This Carlson issue has been under discussion for several weeks. Yet, most new editors invited in from outside are expected to understand the detail and the nuances from a snapshot. Many comments show that the new editors have not read or understood any of the threads. While I consider that all new editors have arrived in good faith, we have to consider that consensus involving new users to this page should not be based upon number of votes, especially when many are expressing the same opinion, but upon policy-related points made by editors.
2. The snapshot of the arguments has been presented by the proposer of the RfC in a simplified and misleading way to the extent that the well was poisoned. This influenced initial comments and many subsequent comments may have been influenced following this misrepresentation - even though most of the misleading comments are now hidden under a 'hat' link.

I propose that editors who have been contributing to this page work together to find an alternative way to reach consensus. Robert Currey talk 23:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sour grapes. If you can't win the argument, say that the argument was rigged. Classy stuff. I cast a horoscope for this page and it seems to indicate that the stars are not aligned in favor of the astrologers. Boo hoo. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

While the wording of the RfC could have been less biased (and now is), it wasn't done in such a way as to make the question fundamentally different. The editors who have commented in opposition did so with appeals to policy, namely DUE, FRINGE, NPOV, etc, and nothing about the new wording that's been added would seem to change that because the content itself is what violates policy, not just how the introduction to the content in the RfC was worded. However, since I can only speculate as to editor mindset, I'll point out that each person who opposed above is very much able to change their opinion now that new wording is being used. But again, what has been opposed generally so far has been the fundamental idea of using fringe sources to criticize RS - not just this particular way of doing it (with a couple exceptions of course). Nformation 00:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The text in question, which was edit warred into the article by astrologers who are coordinating offsite, violates numerous content policies that others have mentioned. Based on the results of this RFC, I suggest we ask for unprotection since there is a clear consensus to remove. Skinwalker (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very inappropriate remark. Though Skinwalker names no names it leaves a nasty implication on every editor who has supported the inclusion of the remark. I can only speak personally: I have followed all the arguments in detail and make my responses in good conscience based on my understanding of the issues involved and the appropriateness of WP policy. I have not edit-warred on this, but have – for what I believe to be good reason – supported the inclusion of the comment or something similar.

To draw attention to the Carlson study, without also including reference to the serious criticisms that were subsequently highlighted concerning its flawed design and data analysis, means that it is being presented in WP with a greater sense of credibility and authority than it actually has. Independent and knowledgeable experts have refuted its reliability - this is a simple matter of fact. Good editors have contributed to this RFC discussion in good faith, but not having been exposed to the full arguments and the consequences of them. It can be seen that many RFC contributors have failed to realise that the reference to the Carlson criticism is not a vindication of astrology, merely an indication that this study, like the Gauquelin study, has been blighted by significant controversy. Whilever well known controversies like this receive no acknowledgement or mention in sources such as WP, adherents will feel vindicated in their belief that there is more to astrology than the scientific establishment is prepared to accept. It is therefore sensible, even for the sceptical argument, to make brief, objectively reported reference to the notable criticisms, and to give reference to other sources that detail them more fully. To not give some kind of representation feeds right into the hands of conspiracy theorists. -- Zac Δ 10:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Serious criticisms are published in other peer reviewed journals, not in astrology fanzines - that has been the entire point of almost every oppose in this RfC. On WP it doesn't matter how logical we, as editors, think an argument is, what matters is how logical or important the correct sources say it is. This is a distinction that seems to be hard for some folks to grasp but it's one that really needs grasping as all these attempts to use fringe sources in this way are simply beating a dead horse and ignoring policy. Nformation 18:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I got here too late, the page has already been unlocked. The Carlson issue is tough nut to crack, but there must be some way to do it within the next 200 years. I think the old encyclopedias were better and I've heard others say it too. You had due diligence and you had to understand the subject. The WP: panoply is like a revival of scholasticism. Not good in my mind. Ken McRitchie (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a really easy way to do it in less than 200 years. Nformation 03:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Easy as pie. Just follow these simple steps...

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results (in actual peer-reviewed journals)
8. Retest and refine (frequently done by other scientists)

We call this science and it is the only method humans have for accurately predicing the future. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Rebuttals to an article published in Nature need to be in a similar publication. Editors should not attempt to overrule WP:DUE by claiming special privilege for the views of a psychologist (our views on the relevance of his expertise are not relevant). Claims made by supporters of astrology are appropriate in their own section of this article, but should not attempt to cancel the isolated examples of discussion that have occurred in properly reviewed scientific publications. Next time, the RfC should be more neutrally worded, something like "Should the following text be added to ?". Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, belatedly, per my many comments on this topic per WP:WEIGHT and this section of WP:FRINGE. Yobol (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that the wording of the RFC was innapropriate and inclined towards yielding a hostile response. It failed to present the reason why the criticisms are notable despite the fact that they are only available for scrutiny in what are determined to be 'fringe sources', and that some of the critics (Eysenck and Ertel) are not astrology-sympathisers but offered independent assesments of the study whilst holding positions of academic authority outside of astrological circles. -- Zac Δ 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose' WP:PARITY does not mention anywhere that a pseudoscience "journal" can be used to critize something published in a journal like Nature. What these pseudoscience journals can be used for is to show their views in general but not treated as an equal to a real journal. "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

The next step now is clearly not the RFC above, which will lead us away from consensus. The only logical next step is listing all issues that are outstanding and blocking consensus. Then we can tackle them one by one. I will start with one, and any editor so inclined can add to the list:

• Presentation of Carlson's research

SLP (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The RFC is yielding results from several uninvolved editors and is shaping consensus on the page. Nformation 18:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading WP:Consensus. The RfC above appears to be leading toward consensus, not away from it. That doesn't mean other issues can't be discussed too, but not in opposition to (or ignorant of) consensus with which you disagree.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe either of you understand how building consensus works. Without having a consensus on outstanding issues, there is no hope for consensus overall. The RFC does nothing in that direction. As I pointed out earlier, the main issue is not Carlson, this is only a symptom. Based on positions taken on this particular symptom, it is simple to predict that most editors will oppose the aim stated in the RFC and there will be a few pro-astrology editors who will support it. So what? Did we learn anything new here? No. Did we inch closer to consensus? No. The effect of the RFC will be to alienate editors on the two sides of the PS divide. Is that building or moving toward consensus? SLP (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

SLP, I think the main barrier to consensus is the reluctance of editors involved in the discussions to make use of secondary sources. I think that would take us half way to solving things in a single step. --FormerIP (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well frankly yes, we will have achieved consensus if, as you put it, only a few pro-astrology editors support the text while the majority of editors don't. That's literally consensus, maybe you have a different idea of what that word means, it seems to me like you're using it as something close to "compromise" which is not what consensus is. Sorry if I've mischaracterized your interpretation. Nformation 20:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@SLP, I do indeed understand consensus, which is why I linked you to WP:CON. I find it a little amusing that, as a new editor, instead of reading up on consensus, or presenting some kind of argument of your own, you've taken to accusing others with whom you disagree of not understanding policy. Consensus is not unanimous agreement. Consensus is not even always majority agreement. However, when an RfC is posted, and a slew of uninvolved editors comment (so far unanimously) in opposition to the proposal, that is indeed consensus against that proposal. If you have another issue you'd like to discuss, or a new argument you'd like considered, I'd welcome you to present it, but this avenue you're trying now probably won't get very far; our policies on fringe topics are quite clear, and editors seem to agree they apply in this case. I'm sure there are other areas of the article that need attention. Perhaps you could concentrate your efforts on those parts instead?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Page unprotected

Page has been unprotected and I have removed the statement that was the focus of the RfC. If there is another way to word that paragraph that satisfies the comments above let's see what comes up. Nformation 01:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What was the hurry I wonder? This reflects very badly on you Noformation as an editor, administrator and moderator. There was absolutely no consensus reached, the issues have not been identified, the way to reach consensus have not even been talked about. Poor show Noformation and a number of other editors for displaying a complete lack of understanding on building consensus. You basically steamrolled a "solution" that you wanted all along (and this qualifies as POV pushing in WP terms) that did not reflect the common intent of editors working on the page. You didn't solve anything but helped sweep the issues and root causes under the carpet by suppressing voices opposing your wish. So once again the problem will just fester and will lead to more wars. Your short-sighted objective of quickly forcing your will on other editors in the guise of consensus building (with the help of DV and others) will backfire in various ways. You just haven't lived long enough to realize that your misguided actions will have an effect even on your personal life. Good luck with that and God have mercy on you (alternatively: may the laws of your mechanical universe be gentle to your physical body) because you will need it. SLP (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• SPL, I advise you redact this gross violation of WP:CIVIL with all due haste. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why was the page protection lifted in the middle of a contentious RfC? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that there wasn't a hurry to lift the page protection, but disagree about the contentious part as the RfC seems to have a very clear consensus already. It would be nice to have an admin come and close it first. siafu (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but the RfC misrepresented the change. The text was already in the article, and had been for at least about a half year. The RfC asked if we should add this to the article. It should have asked it we should remove it from the article.

Also, RfCs are meant to solicit opinions from uninvolved editors. But as soon as the RfC was opened, involved editors were immediately contacted to participate.

Further, the wording from the RfC was non-neutral. If any meaningful consensus can be obtained from a misrepresented and non-neutral RfC, I'm not sure what it would be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No offence, AQfK, but that's fabricated. The text proposed had been in for less than a day. The earlier text was undisputededly bad. Not even the astrologers were able to defend it. Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, it seemed pretty clear-cut to me, and I would not have taken a different stance had it been presented as text already in the article being suggested for removal; in my experience, almost no RfC's are actually worded in a neutral fashion. It's also not the case that RfC's are exclusive of the involved parties. Are there any arguments presented above that you believe would have been invalidated or not presented if different wording were used? Either way, my suggestion was for an admin to close it rather than myself, intentionally, so there's no need to overinterpret my comment. siafu (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear. My concern isn't about the outcome, it's about the process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(i) I don't see how a 17-3 (3 meaning if Ken, Robert and SLP had actually !voted) RfC could be considered contentious. There wasn't decent policy based argument against an oppose vote, this is clearly a WP:SNOW move. (ii) The RfC is not closed, so assuming that all these editors are wrong in their policy interpretation, and if way more than that join the discussion supporting the text, then consensus can change (iii)Even if the RfC misrepresented the change, it didn't do it in such a way that any of the arguments would be invalidated. In the opinion of the editors, the text as presented violated basic WP policy, so whether it was being added, kept or subtracted, or if it had been there for 10 years or 10 hours, it still violates policy and should not be in the article (iiii) RfCs are for both involved and uninvolved editors. Dominic notified people who had been involved with the discussion, and if he hadn't been then someone would have reprimanded him and done it for him. Nformation 06:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot I would like to say, but I have to be out of town. I stand by my comments about the bungling of the RfC. I couldn't support it as I have already argued for a different phraseology which excluded Vidmar and had not seen an objection from the proposer of the text Ken. Some of the imported editors brought some good suggestions, but many made a priori statements about astrology or repeated arguments that had already been shown to be incorrect. So given the circumstances, I believe their opinion on this does not add weight beyond those of editors who have followed and contributed to the arguments on the page. Robert Currey talk 11:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I'm sorry but when 18 other established, uninvolved editors all disagree with your interpretation of policy and when the only 3-4 people who agree with it are other people with an astrological POV, you have to consider that maybe, just maybe, your interpretation is not the standard interpretation of the Wiki. There wasn't a single support, and it's not the wording of the RfC. Almost all the arguments boiled down to the idea that using a fringe source to criticize an RS is not permissible - something that has been said on this talk page dozens of times before this RfC - and if you disagree with this policy you are free to try change it. However, the point of the RfC, I imagine, was for other people to come in here and reexplain policy since some here refused to accept it when it was me, Dom, Judith, etc. I never had a doubt in my mind that if an RfC was called, this would be the result. I also have no doubt that if you created a newly worded RfC, and if it still tried to use SciEx as a source, it would end up the same way again. Come on, man, the guy who started this entire site thinks that people who publish or are involved with SciEx "should be ashamed of themselves," doesn't that tell you anything about how other editors might respond to the same source? Nformation 18:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't get your point. Quest. You've seen enough RfCs before to know the score. Most questions are so badly formulated that there are zero, one or two responses. In this one the question was clear, and even though the formulation did lead towards one direction a bit, it didn't affect the response rate or the way that people responded. You can tell that from the arguments made. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

/* Core principles

Zach undid my recent edit to the first paragraph of the "core principles" section with the edit summary "Reword made the text unreliable. Manilius did not say it, it's a CP because it implicit in all the major works, his ref offers an example." If this is the case then it sounds like we have an WP:OR problem. We can't offer an interpretation like the one listed there without being able to source that interpretation secondarily. Phrases like "integration with the cosmos" and whatnot may be inferred by some readers of Manilius but not others. Zach, Robert, etc, I'm guessing you're well read enough to recommend some decent sources on the subject? Nformation 06:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The entire core principles section reeks of original research based on synthesis of primary sources. Sourcing for this section should be academic sources published by academic presses and university presses. Self-published spam is obviously not allowed, and interpretations of primary sources have to be presented in high quality sources. I have no doubt that there are genuine academic treatments of this topic available. There is therefore no need to use primary or poor-quality sources. I've removed the spam, for obvious reasons. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to restore the passage which Domius Vobidus removed after incorrectly assuming it was placed for self-promotional purposes. Several editors, myself included, were involved in the creation of the text and we all felt that this statement perfectly expressed a concept that is difficult for novices to understand - about how the relationship between the macrocosm and the microcosm is a philosophical one, and not a purely materialistic one. This is simply providing a good editorial summary of what is stated in the most influential astrological sources, not OR. The editor whose work is referenced is a published author who had deliberately avoided making any kind of reference to his own work in case it raised COI concerns. I was the one who added the reference to the text, after considering this and concluding that whilst we shouldn't make references to promote works, we should not deliberately exclude them either if they are relevant and give a good source for further information. You can see that I added the reference here based on my understanding of the sensitivities involved, and feeling that in this place it was appropriate to do so (explained here). I stand by what I said in that talk-page comment and do not want negative implications to fall on other editors because of my actions which were made in good faith. -- Zac Δ 13:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Noformation - I assumed the reason for my reversion of that part of your change would be clear enough from the edit summary and would not therefore cause any problem. Your change made it sound like Manilius stated "the core principle of astrology is" when that is obviously an editorial lead-in to a point which is in no way controversial, nor based on original research. We can reliably state that it is a core principle because it is a well known astrological principle which is expressed within all the major works that touch upon the philosophy of astrology. The Manilius ref was offered as a suitable example of how the principle is seen to be expressed in one of the many similar comments he makes in his work. I could add a very long list of similar examples from other texts but for an uncontroversial point that should not be necessary. I'll try to find a suitable secondary source which puts this point to bed. In the meantime, if there are any problems with this section of text, could the concerns be noted here so the text can be better substantiated, or reworded as necessary? I do not want to be accused of edit-warring for restoring text that is being removed without good reason, or for reverting changes that make nonsense of the accompanying references. -- Zac Δ 07:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I'm going to bed in a few so I'll respond to the rest tomorrow, but I'd just like to say that when it comes to this section this is pretty much your realm so I wouldn't worry too much about edit warring and what not. You, Robert, Ken, etc, know far more about the intricacies of astrology than anyone else here so this section should certainly reflect your expertise. I say this because I don't want you to think that your opinion and contribution is not wanted on this page, based on the tension in the science section, and there is nothing personal on my end. Nformation 07:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think these things should be made or taken personally either. I did not contribute significantly to the scientific research coverage but I did play an active role in the development of this section, so I can tell you that it was put together cautiously after collaborative sandbox development thrashed out a number of issues to ensure the text is non-controversial, and that the wording carefully and succintly represents the most important philosophical principles of astrology. Hopefully new editors will understand that it is difficult to convey the gist of deep philosophical principles to the average reader in a nutshell, so if there are any perceived problems it would be useful to have them brought up for discussion.

I have added a reference to a widely known secondary source which should resolve the concern you raised about perceptions of OR in the introductory explanation. This specifially describes what we term a 'core principle' as a "philosophical foundation of astrology". The passage I have quoted also includes the comment "In this view, the psyche is not merely a whole unto itself but is also a part of the greater whole that reflects it". I have therefore used the same reference to qualify the comment "His arguments reflect how astrology has always involved consideration of the psyche" which you had marked with an OR tag. I'm assuming your concern relates to the use of the word 'psyche', and I think this ref is sufficient to demonstrate that this is not an OR comment. To give you a little more understanding of why this is not controversial, the Greek word ‘psyche’, like its Latin counterpart ‘anima’, is encountered in many classical astrology texts, as a reference to the 'soul’, or ‘animating breath’ ‘spirit’ or ‘mind’, which was the focus of the Neoplatonic philosophy that established many of the core principles of astrology. The word is usually rendered into English translations as ‘soul’, but ‘psyche’, as properly understood, remains a better word for what is meant. This integrates seamlessly with the use of the word as applied by Jung because ancient astrologers (and the Arabic and medieval texts that transmit their works) don’t differentiate between the mind, the spirit, or the soul, and the English word translations are often used interchangeably in an attempt to decribe some kind of invisible organ of perception that determines the will to move or act. Hence the ancient and traditional astrology texts which talk about establishing the nature or quality of the soul, are properly understood by reference to words such as this, and modern astrological discussions of the principles tend to retain them in their original form (see for example: Campion, N. (2010), 'Astronomy and Psyche in the Classical World, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Ptolemy', Journal of Cosmology, 9, 2179-2186). -- Zac Δ 12:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Correlation is not a reliable source for anything on WP, except perhaps as an illustration of the sort of nonsense that astrolgers write. An author who publishes in Correlation is does not gain any notability and cannot be considered an expert on anything because of that fact. Correlation does not have a rigorous selection process for submitted articles. Apparently, things get published on the mere whim of the editor in chief. In effect, any article in Correlation is no better than a self-published article, and has no place in WP.

Zac, you really have to learn what is a reliable source, and what is not. Your of no help to WP unless you do. I'm sure that plenty has been published in real academic sources on the topic of astronomy, by real qualified scholars (with real higher degrees in philosophy, history, anthropology and the like). Find and use these sources, and there will be no problem. There is no need to relying on unqualified individuals writing in fake journals. From what I gather, you have a genuine desire to learn more about this topic. So do this for your own sake, so that you have the best information on the topic, and not blithering nonsense from pretend self-declared scholars and experts who have not received any genuine recognition in the real academic world. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this section doesn't even get past the starting block. For a start it is only core principles of Hellenistic-Arab-European astrology. And then it rides roughshod over the history of thought in Asia and Europe from ancient times to the present. It's trying to claim a continuity of traditions that is simply not there in mainstream history. Pure synthesis. I can't see any way of improving it; it needs to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've looked it over carefully, and agree with your assessment. Pure OR and SYNTH. The whole section is worthless and can be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

DV, since we are covering astrology not astronomy, and since this page concerns “the sort of nonsense that astrologers write”, then yes, the sources that are influential in astrological circles are suitable for illustration purposes. I can see you enjoy using terms like “complete and utter fraudulent bullshit”, and “blithering nonsense”, and so forth, but I don’t enjoy having to search for any sensible comment you might make from the surrounding baggage of insulting remarks and ad hominem attacks (such as that which you placed in your edit summary about another contributing editor today).

Judith, if you are able to contribute knowledge of other core principles please feel free, but the reference to these as core principles means that we should be identifying the most influential concepts that are embedded in the heart of astrological philosophy. It might help to refer again to the post I made here. In reference to core principles there is no need to refer to “Hellenistic-Arab-European” since these core ideas were well-established in Hellenistic times and the rest is illustration of transmission (the astrological thoughts were equally influential upon Asia and Europe). What was established in the Hellenistic period, was based on principles established by the older civilizations (Pythagoras, for example, took from Thales, who took from Babylonian and Egyptian sources). Alexandria acted as a central collation point for ideas that arose in ancient Babylonia, Persia and Egypt. These collated philosophies became crystallized in the formal structuring of astrology in the Hellenistic era. The systemizing of astrology drew from all the surrounding Mediterranean regions and flowed back through Asia and India. So these key astrological principles are global in influence, but most western readers will want to see their influence demonstrated in relation to the historical names they are familiar with - hence this necessarily brief summary includes reference to Pythagoras, Plato, Ptolemy, Alkindi and Kepler.

We do need amendment where the text currently states that the principles used in Chinese astrology, such as Yin and Yang, are based on different principles (your addition I think). They are not. Western astrology utilises the same principle to the same extent, but simply uses different terms (it originates the division into masculine/feminine; diurnal and nocturnal states). There could be some sensible and useful development of this point but I’m not prepared to do this myself whilever the editorial logic expressed on this page reduces itself to “Doesn’t get past starting block … I can't see any way of improving it; it needs to go” supported by “I've looked it over carefully, and agree… The whole section is worthless and can be deleted”

It’s quite amusing DV, how you wrap a veneer of sincerity around your concern that I might “learn more about this topic”. It seems I must resign myself to forever being “of no help to WP”. But there we go – having demoralized most of the contributing editors, and worn out (or otherwise ejected) most of the reasonable editors who fought for neutrality and objectivity; having raised emotive hostility its peak following a series of inadequately balanced RFCs, and having confused all sense of where the direction for development lies and what the remit of the article extends to (let alone what sources can be referred to), consensus is now being driven towards the systematic annihilation of this subject, based on little more than cursory glances and reciprocated appreciation of the prospect of deleting sections. The reason? Difficult to isolate with analysis of any particular point, but it seems that if the section as a whole doesn't show astrology in an obviously demeaning light, it can be dismissed for being termed a "pro-astrology argument".

I'm not done reading it, but I got to the paragraph on Pythagoras. Completely original research synthesis of sources. Using sources which don't mention astrology to discuss the so called "heart of astrology" is completely out of line. --Daniel 16:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? - just so eager to record your editorial analysis that you couldn't wait to finish reading the passage before issuing your dismissal of it? That's enthusiasm. I've restored the text, along with the references you didn't seem to take much notice of. Other editors need to be able to consider these -- Zac Δ 18:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I got through the whole thing. It actually boils down to a a pro astrology argument from authority, name checking notable minds who discussed astrology. Beyond that all it really says is that "as above, so below" is a core principle of astrology, the gist of which is covered in the first sentence of the article. I think the whole section has to go. --Daniel 16:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I agree that we should have a clear description of astrological thought and practice in ancient Greece. That should be written up from scholarly sources on ancient Greek thought. The connections with Mesopotamian astrological/astronomical observation should be explained, again from good scholarly sources.

Then there are both continuities and disjunctions in the transmission to the medieval Islamic world and Europe, and presumably to India too, although I know much less about that, and there is also the Vedic connection to be explored. It is crucial to explain how astrology had to find a place within debates about fate and predestination in the monotheistic religions. We must not assume that astrology is always essentially the same set of beliefs and practices, but must follow what scholars say about how it evolved.

I didn't write the yin and yang stuff, but did copy some material in from Chinese astrology, on a temporary basis. I have found a description of early Chinese astrology: F. Richard Stephenson, "Chinese Roots of Modern Astronomy", New Scientist, 26 June 1980. The author is an astronomer and seems to have researched the subject well, but it's unreferenced and the New Scientist isn't peer reviewed. I propose to use it a bit for now, pending a search for better sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the section heading, if you want it to be about principles laid down in ancient Greece. But look later, if you want a clear example of what we are saying about poor quality. You attribute a view to Francis Bacon that you know perfectly well goes back to Aquinas and before. You are trying to construct an argument that "astrology today is the same as practiced since time immemorial", and that's original synthesis, not supported by any respectable research. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article on lunar mansion implies that it is an astrological concept found in the Chinese, Indian and Arabic traditions, so I think it should be explained here. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Dom and Judith, I think we need to step back a bit and recognize that our resident astrologers know far more about this subject than we do. While the section might have problems, it would be beneficial, I think, if we let them deal with the section while we help guide it to policy. I gotta be honest, I think you're coming off as antagonistic, which I can understand considering the shitstorm in the science section for the last couple months, but lets try to calm the waters and work together from here on out.

Correlation is a standard fringe journal, yes? If that's the case then it should be fine to use as a source for things that astrologers say about astrology, outside of science of course. The section should probably discuss the Chinese/Western/modern/ancient similarities and differences to give it a more worldwide view of the subject, and the Bacon thing was a bit too POV, but I think this section is well written and flows very nicely. Let's assume good faith that it can generally be sourced and let's try not to focus on removal but fixing instead. When it comes down to it, we need a section on core principles otherwise the article will be severely lacking, and since there's no WP:DEADLINE, let's work with what we've got. Nformation 18:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Correlation as a source. Again.

Zac, please do not add the McRitchie paper to the article again. The article is by a non-expert in fake journal, and it is clearly not a reliable source for this article or any article on WP.

As far as I can tell, Ken McRichie is not an recognized expert in anything. His book, "Principles and Theory of Natal Astrology" was published by Cognizance Books, Toronto. If you Google -- "cognizance books" toronto -- you'll see that they have no website, and have published only one book, namely McRitchie's.]. McRitchie's book also shows up as the only book Cognizance has ever published here: ]. This strongly indicates that the book was self-published by the author himself. As for Correlation, you have been told time and time again that this is a fake "journal", with zero worth as a source on WP. As Jimbo Wales himself told you,

"Let me a bit more direct, while at the same time thanking FormerIP for being so diplomatic here. Those claims are so patently absurd, they instantly demolish any sort of claim that it is a "genuine, peer-reviewed journal". It's quackery of the worst kind, and should only be used as a source for Misplaced Pages whenever it might be necessary to illustrate what kind of nonsense some people believe. It isn't science, it isn't academic, it's just rank nonsense." ]

Please stop wasting other editors' time with this nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class astrology articles
• Top-importance astrology articles
• WikiProject Astrology articles
• B-Class Occult articles
• Unknown-importance Occult articles
• WikiProject Occult articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment