Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:10, 7 July 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: 7 days

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

Template:WP1.0

	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

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

This article is undergoing revision. A proposed draft is located at Talk:Astrology/Workpage.

Archives

Dec 2001 - Aug 2005 Sept 2005 - Dec 2005 Jan 2006 - mid-Feb 2006 mid-Feb 2006 - End of April 2006 May 2006 Early June 2006 Mid June 2006 Early July 2006 End of July 2006 July 2006 - End of 2006 End of 2006 - May 2007 June 2007 – March 2009 February 2009 – April 2010 Oct 2010 – /Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Definition of astrology The statement that astrology 'is' divination is misleading because it ignores the Aristotelian tradition of western astrology as natural influence. (See John North, 'Celestial Influence – the Major Premiss of Astrology’, in , Stars, Minds and Fate: Essays in Ancient and Medieval Cosmology, London, The Hambledon Press 1989, pp. 243-98; David Pingree, ‘Astrology’ in Philip P. Wiener (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973), Vol. 1, p 118-126.). It also fails to account for radically different views of what divination is. I would suggest replacing this statement with a definition of astrology, such as Patrick Curry's, which might then in turn lead to a discussion of astrology as different phenomena - as magic, spirituality, science, pseudo-science, art, religion, psychology, or any of the other descriptions of it. Curry wrote: ‘Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated’ (Curry, Patrick, ‘Astrology’, in Boyd, Kelly (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing, 2 Vols. London: Fitzroy Dearborn 1999, Vol. 1, pp 55-7 (p. 55)). By the way, I see no reason why this page can't be improved without controversy by balanced attention to both scholarly and primary sources.Paul Quigley (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from P.Ganakan, 22 April 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

in Kerala a southern state of India, The Ganaka/kaniyar Panicker/Kaniyan community is well known for their traditional practice of astrology (Jyothisaha) P.Ganakan (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please explain the notability of such information. Moreover, Misplaced Pages cannot be a reference for another Misplaced Pages article. OrangeMarlin 19:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.2.93.209, 24 April 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove qualification (condemnation) from old resources cited opinion, attitude and view of astrology (which is not information, but declaration of view), as not neutral and not true.(false., one statement):

Astrology is a system of divination founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies are signs of or—more controversially among astrologers—causes of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events.

and please replace with:

"Astrology is a system of founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies are symbols in correlation to personality, human affairs, and natural events. Founded by astrological notion : As above so below."

and please replace :

"In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience."

with this true information:

"Some of skeptic and religious description of astrology believe that astrology is pseudoscience"

Reason for replacement is: point of view is part of public view, not represent true information, and come from people without objective information in field or knowledge in field, false information, wrong subject, partial view of subject, misinformation. Reason for deletion original "pseudoscience" term is: astrological symbols are part of human culture, and methodology can not be copy of scientific, false scientific 2000 older than term pseudo-scientific. Also, astrology can not be in whole picture of some uninformed person, nor one part of this big and large human activity.

I suggest changing the introduction to more fully encapsulate the essence of what astrology is. I propose

Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated.

I would cite Dr Nick Campion and Patrick Curry as references, both of whom are also historians. It is false to say that astrology is founded by the notion 'as above so below', as this statement only emerged from the Corpus Hermeticum and clearly astrology by far predates that. Xpaulk (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

78.2.93.209 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV. It is not the purpose of articles to be balanced between two points of view. It cannot give undue weight to fringe theories. Until you have some scientific evidence that one can predict anything based on the stars, then it is absolutely a pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin 03:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You say "It is not the purpose of articles to be balanced between two points of view. It cannot give undue weight to fringe theories."

WP:UNDUE would apply to a discussion of astrology in an article that is about some other subject. But this article is about astrology. One of the complaints about astrology is that so many people give it credence. But even if only a tiny minority believed that astrology had validity, it would merit an article in Misplaced Pages if it met the test of notability. WP:UNDUE says that "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." This is an article that is devoted to astrology. To claim that the very subject matter of an article has undue weight amounts to a challenge to the existence of the article. The appropriate tool for a challenge to the existence of an article is WP:NOTE. But the notability of astrology is not questioned. Bn (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't deny the mainstream viewpoint about a Fringe subject just because it's a Fringe article. But Bn is right that we don't give it that much attention either. This article currently has a decent amount of the critical response to astrology, but the better solution to that is to increase the amount of content about astrology, not to remove the noteworthy criticism. Notability was being used as a shorthand for Weight--reliably sourced content deserving mention. Ocaasi 02:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This WP entry is not working. A suggestion for a new approach.

Sorry to be a negferret, but this WP entry is notably bad, for many reasons. Maybe it's because there are too many images but even the layout is a mess. Huge chunks of white space between the sections. Some sections are heavily overworked whilst others have insufficient content/just a link. (Perhaps it looks fine on a laptop or differrent sized monitors?)

What is on display generates a lot of controversy - unecessarily I think. (I've just come from a page on a holocaust denier, and by comparison that page is informative and credible and lacks the emotive tone that this one does). For all the discussion assertions of NPOV etc; this page strikes the reader for its lack of clear, effective reporting. Reading through the discussions it seems that contributors are at war across conflicting viewpoints. This page has no hope of salvage whilst that remains the case. (I am an editor who wants to improve the quality of WP,BTW, I am not arguing for or against astrology).

Maybe the subject itself is too big and difffuclt to define, but the whole thing smacks of chaos and suffers from a lack of consistency. Why not consider a new approach - scrap this page down to one short introductory comment on how astrology differs from astronomy, and simply lead that into a well organised list of hierarchical links that lead to different sections. Then you can eliminate concerns such as a western notion of astrology misrepreseting eastern notions, etc; and the discussions on the science of astrology and the history of astrology can be expanded appropriately.

It looks like the group has made a half-hearted movement towards this approach but it doesn't work because it's not fully efective, and now the whole page looks like a mess of different people trying to make the page say what they want it to say. Be dramatic and segregate it all. As it is, this is not working as an introduction to the subject at all. Sorry. If there is any leg work I can help with that, but for now just passing on my view.Selkhet (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a expert on this subject or very familiar with this article, but I don't consider Selkhet's suggestion to be outrageous at all. I've seen long articles burnt down to a stub for complete rebuilding a couple of times, to good effect. It is rare and is an extreme measure. Whether this article requires such an extreme measure I don't know. Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

definiton of astrology

I am proposing to change the first sentence which makes the misleading claim that astrology 'is' divination, in line with my post of 20 june on this page. Does anyone wish to comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Quigley (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with an assertion that astrology 'is' divination. A claim that divination works would be another matter. I think that the rest of the sentence makes clear that it is 'presumption' rather than fact - so I don't see the need for change. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely, though, the issue is not whether you have a problem with the statement that astrology 'is' divination. Plenty of commentators, bith critics and supporters of astrology, dscribe it as divination. The issue for an encyclopaedia article is whether this decsribes the whole picture. If an astrology of natural influence practiced within an Aristotelian context has no need of the divine in any sense, how is that divination? We need to look at the bigger picture in which astrology can be divination, but is not necessarily so. I'm pasting in four other definitions below, all sourced, which illustrate the problem

Concise Oxford Dictionary, Clarendon Press 1952. (Formerly) practical astronomy (also called natural ~); art of judging of reputed occult influence of stars upon human affairs (judicial ~)

David Pingree, ‘Astrology’ in Philip P. Wiener (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons), Vol. 1, p 118. ‘the study of the impact of the celestial bodies - Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the fixed stars and sometimes the lunar nodes - upon the sublunar world... The influence of the celestial bodies is variously considered to be absolutelydeterminative of all motions of the four sublunar elements (Aristotelian physics is accepted as the basis for describing this influence...’ http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-20;toc.depth=1;toc.id=dv1-20;brand=default

‘Astrology’ in Chambers Encyclopaedia, Intellectual Learning Systems, London 1970, p 724. ‘Astrology (Greek astrologos, ‘science of the stars’) in early times was a comprehensive term for the study both of the motions of the heavenly bodies and of their supposed influence on human and terrestrial affairs’. Paul Quigley (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Astrology is divination in the sense that the reading of mere physical traits of relative planet location are taken to indicate personalities, life-choices, and human events. For those who don't think astrology follows physics, divination is exactly what that entails. For those who think there is a 'deep connection' that is ultimately physical, astrologers are still divining what the physical evidence means. For those who think astrology has a hidden mechanism of 'aristotelian' physics, well, they have yet to prove it with modern physics, and the gap between the belief and the proof is exactly where divination resides. So, my comment is that only if we were to assume the conclusion that astrology is real and science-based would it be appropriate to exclude divination from the definition. I don't think it is. Ocaasi 14:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ocaasi that divination should not be excluded, though if it is to remain somewhere in the Lede it should be related to the various alternative models of astrology. As Paul Quigley correctly states divination is only part of astrology and does not adequately describe the entire field of astrology. So divination is inappropriate and misleading as the sole initial definition of astrology.

As stated on the Astrology page (see Mechanisms section), divination is one of at least three possible mechanisms for astrology. Though apart from within natural astrology (tides, weather, seismic activity and planet-sunspot activity) these mechanisms are not yet known. However, merely obtaining data via an unknown mechanism does not define a practice as divination.

Divination entails obtaining supernatural insight into the future through access to a higher force or divine power. This can be through a raised state of consciousness or even a trance such as clairvoyance or clairaudience or clairsentience. Or the insight comes via what some would label a random activity and others a manifestation of a higher or divine source which includes the Tarot, I-Ching, Runes or even Tea-Leaves. Though some consider ESP to be a natural sixth sense, all these practices are commonly considered divinatory.

Divination is not just a possible mechanism. Astrology can be used in a divinatory way or can be viewed as originating from the operation of a divine force. However, most astrologers work as you know with a predictable scientific model of the solar system measured in 2D space and time. To most astrologers, including software programmers like myself, this operates according to the workings of Newtonian and subsequent celestial mechanics rather than by divine intervention. Whether you consider that astrologers reach conclusions that can be supported by objective evidence or whether it is purely subjective or simply imaginary, their technique is mostly through interpreting objective data consciously. This process is usually both logical and intuitive. However, intuition is not the same as divination. Robert Currey talk 09:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Divination entails obtaining supernatural insight into the future through access to a higher force or divine power". Not unless you have a reliable source for that, it doesn't. It may sometimes be based on an assumption that this is what is happening, but that isn't the same thing at all. Unless evidence can be provided that demonstrates how (if?) astrology works, it is divination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Divination, "the art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers" (Websters). It is an accurate description. TFD (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting excluding divination as an explanation for astrology, for some forms of it, such as Babylonian astrology are based on communication with divinity, and both some modern practitioners and commentators say that it is divination. However, I think the article needs to begin with a broad definition that allows for different approaches, practices and truth claims. I don't think that any definition of astrology caries any implication for its truth or not, only for the nature of its claims and philosophies - I don't think that to exclude divination from the the initial definition means that it is real and science-based, only that it includes different truth claims and forms of practice some of which claim natural influence or do not require divinity.Paul Quigley (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading the definition. It does not matter if the mechanism that allows astrologists to access hidden information is supernatural or could be explained by yet unknown physical causation not yet explained. The point is that no physical laws have been advanced. It could be similar to folk medicine, which in many cases is beneficial but the witch doctor does not know for example that the remedies include active ingredients rather than mystical properties. TFD (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So the argument goes that the entire field of astrology is best described as divination because the mechanism which is not, as yet, known can only be termed supernatural, regardless of what the proponents theorize, claim or believe.

This is not consistent with situations where evidence precedes a known mechanism. Before Louis Pasteur was able to confirm germ theory, there was no claim that the evidence from Ignaz Semmelweis that hygiene reduced mortality was as a result of supernatural forces. Or that Wegener’s theory of continental drift was caused by supernatural forces, even though the mechanism was not known and is still debated among geophysicists and geologists. When a scientist forecast that the Pacific tectonic plate was likely to continue to move in a westerly direction, was that divination? Nowadays, though a few believe that supernatural or divine forces fill the gaps in the Big Bang theory, most scientists researching the field believe that the unknown forces within the Universe like quantum gravity or dark energy will be accounted for by natural laws.

So when labelling a field, it is misleading to put one theory above the competing claims, theories and the beliefs of the proponents whether we agree with them or not.

For the record, I consider that most but not all astrological correlations have no known mechanisms. Robert Currey talk 18:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your entire argument is based on the premise that there are mechanisms. As such, it is of little relevance until the mechanisms have been demonstrated to exist. You cannot assert that 'astrology isn't divination' by making predictions about it being proven to work by some as-yet-unknown mechanism at some undetermined point in the future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Scientists may observe connections between seemingly unconnected phenomena and seek to explain them, always being aware that the apparent connection may be coincidental. But astrologists do not operate that way. And no there does not have to be a conjecture of supernatural or divine forces in order for it to be divination. Notice the use of the word usually. U S U A L L Y. It means not always, but most of the time. TFD (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I believe that most social scientists would class astrology as a form of divination, and this is a proper use of the word. But really, this argument should be resolved through sources. If recent studies of astrology categorize it using other terms, we should consider those too. Note 90 is not a historian/anthropologist/sociologist of religion or the occult, and does not seem to use the word divinationSlrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump – I am not claiming “astrology isn’t divination” just that not all astrology is divination and not all astrologers practice divination. It’s not about whether mechanisms exist or will be shown to exist or not. For our purposes here, this is unknown. The point is that some astrologers attribute repeating correlations to a supernatural or divine force that can never be truly known or defined by science, while others consider there are unknown causal mechanisms and others consider it accausal. To claim that it is all divination is a value judgement favouring one of at least three competing beliefs. It is not our place to side with one view point especially when we are defining a field.

TFD – I hope I have not misunderstood your points.

Your first point appears to be that rules for scientists don’t apply to astrologers because they lack critical thinking. This is not correct - a number of astrologers work on an empirical basis. However, everyone including scientists and astrologers can confuse coincidence with correlation and correlation with causation. (This deserves a fuller answer, but it is getting off-topic and I would be happy to elaborate on your Talk Page).

“there does not have to be a conjecture of supernatural or divine forces in order for it to be divination” My understanding from this is that you are implying that someone like a stock market analyst may believe they are being logical and intuitive when they are really tapping into supernatural powers and therefore practicing divination? Unless you can provide objective evidence for supernatural powers, we cannot ignore the belief or claim or techniques of the forecaster.

“I believe that most social scientists would class astrology as a form of divination” Excuse my scepticism, but doesn’t this distinction advance their claim to being scientists?

My point is that as the sole definition of astrology, divination is at worst inadequate and at best contentious. Divination was only arbitrarily (IMO) inserted in March this year just after six editors with astrological expertise were banned from this page for the crime of presenting an inconvenient truth with a little too much enthusiasm IMO. So there has never been a full and fair discussion. Following the proposals by Paul Quigley and Slrubenstein, we should now consider alternative, broader and more modern neutral definitions of astrology. Robert Currey talk 11:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Technical analysis of stock markets has been accused of being similar to astrology. It is of course possible to provide scientific analysis to the claims of astrology, but astrologists do not do that because no test could consistently show any connection between heavenly events and terrestial activity that could not be explained by existing science. TFD (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

TFD - You raise a lot of points that I have discussed extensively and intend to do so on this page or elsewhere. I agree with some and on others I believe you are perpetrating popular but unsupported myths. However, I now think we are splitting hairs in relation to the original point. This conversation would be more relevant at some stage in relation to a much-needed review of the astrology and science section. It's now time to look at verification with references. Robert Currey talk 12:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Hi Slrubenstein, rather than saying 'I believe that most social scientists would class astrology as a form of divination', can you give sources and then we can discuss them. My point is that we need to be working from the best sources. Now, regardless of whether there is any truth or validity in astrology or not, it needs to be represented properly, and if it is defined simply as divination and if divination requirs some supernatural agency, then the entire Aristotelian tradition in western astrology is ignored. In Aristotelian celestial mechanics the cosmos operated on the basis of causes and influences, with no necessity for any divine agency. In medieval Islam, and in Europe from the 12th to 17th centuries the naturalistic rationale for astrology was crucial as it protected astrology from religious disapproval. The Aristotelian definition for astrology is given by David Pingree as follows: ‘the study of the impact of the celestial bodies - Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the fixed stars and sometimes the lunar nodes - upon the sublunar world... The influence of the celestial bodies is variously considered to be absolutely determinative of all motions of the four sublunar elements (Aristotelian physics is accepted as the basis for describing this influence...’ David Pingree, ‘Astrology’ in Philip P. Wiener (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons), Vol. 1, p 118. http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-20;toc.depth=1;toc.id=dv1-20;brand=default There is a wikipedia page on Pingree. Also, I recommend LeMay, Richard, Abu Ma'shar and Latin Aristotelianism, Beirut: American University of Beirut, Oriental Series no. 38, 1962. North, John, 'Celestial Influence – the Major Premiss of Astrology’, in , Stars, Minds and Fate: Essays in Ancient and Medieval Cosmology, London, The Hambledon Press 1989, pp. 243-98. Can we move the discussion on from unsourced claims and work from sources. Hi this post was from me Paul Quigley, I don't know why it didn't sign my namePaul Quigley (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you may want to look up the word "but" in the dictionary. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I apologise, I was too hasty in reading your post. I appreciate your pointPaul Quigley (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is interesting (and my fault, since I added divination during the definition discussion a few months back). Our article on divination defines it as "The attempt to gain insight by way of a standardized process or ritual". I can't see how that definition doesn't fit even the more rigorous and technical astrological approaches. I think giving credence to the possibility of a mechanism while the conclusions are nonetheless taken for granted is the essence of divination. Nobody who practices reiki knows how the energy is transmitted but they operate on the assumption that it is. This element of practice preceding understanding is common to the paranormal arts. It's also, fairly, part of frontier scientific fields to a degree--but the difference is that those fields have a way to explore the connection and people who are working seriously at doing so (and those people are published, peer-reviewed authors). Astrology, a few isolated individuals aside, is not an art in search of a mechanism; it's a systematic process of divination in which the root correlations between planetary position and human behavior are assumed. (Hi Robert! Sorry we meet again at cross purposes... hope things are going well for you). Ocaasi 18:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Divination being "The attempt to gain insight by way of a standardized process or ritual" seems to cover astrology, but is this definition too broad to satisfy the distinctions this article tries to make? Aren't standardized processes used throughout science to gain insight? One has to wonder how for example Watson and Crick (using Franklin's data) could have gained insight into the structure of DNA without standardized processes. Are our insights into DNA, hence all the implications for genetics and personality, then the product of divination? Ken McRitchie (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi, all well thanks and you?

Further to the point made by Ken McRitchie, my problem with divination as The attempt to gain insight by way of a standardized process or ritual is that it is a Barnum Statement – in this case meaning all things to all professions from scientific research to accountancy. Also the source from a relatively unknown anthropologist in a specialist book on African Divination is not very solid.

Our problem in seeking a definition for astrology is that astrology can be loosely placed into many arguable categories, but the entire field does not naturally fit into any one.

Even if we go against the historical tradition of astrology and most practitioners and even if we ignore the evidence from natural astrology (tides, weather, seismic activity, sunspots) and assert that astrology operates by supernatural forces, astrology still does not naturally fit into divination. For example, astrology is distinctly different from other forms of divination in that the source of the data (planetary movements) is objective, permanent, universal and not random and the interpretation is subject to rules that require years of study rather than being a 'gift'. Most astrologers stick to astrology, while most psychics use a variety of divinatory techniques like tarot or clairvoyance and their use of astrology is usually limited to sun signs and using the chart as a medium for divination rather than interpretation and analysis.

We can look at classifying astrology, (here I am loosely interpreting your proposals) as a practice based mainly on subjective interpretation of objective data without known mechanisms and without an organised quest for a mechanism. This definition places astrology closer to ‘alternative’ medicine or even psychology rather than divination.

The point is whichever way we try to define astrology, divination is insufficient and as such misleading.

Can we do better with a broader definition from a reliable source? Paul Quigley has put forward some well sourced definitions which we should consider. I don’t have access to any modern encyclopaedias. Ocaasi, which references did you use for divination and are they the ones cited on the page? Please can you also provide us with other references to which you referred when you selected divination as the best option so that we can also consider them here? The present definition cites:

• Pingree, David (1973). "Astrology". In Philip P. Wiener. The Dictionary of the History of Ideas.
• Price, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Classical Myth and Religion. Oxford University Press, 2003

Does anyone have the original wording from Pingree and Price? Does it include divination? Robert Currey talk 11:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused - why is it so important to pin down a definition of divination here? The discussion topic heading says 'definition of astrology'. The subject of divination has its own WP page: ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right - looking for a definition of divination is either a tangent or an excuse for original research. All we need is a reliable source on astrology that classifies it as a form of divination. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So now I am more confused about what this discussion aims to achieve. Why not follow the reliable source suggested, or find one that meets everyone’s approval, rather than search for an alternative that defines astrology in a controversial or confusing manner?

The point made is that divination is an element within astrology, it is not the definition of astrology or the sum of everything astrology is. I have a leg but that does not mean I am a leg.

Astrologers who, say, look for patterns in sun-spot activity or correlate planetary cycles with weather extremes or financial trends would not admit to taking a divinatory approach. Gauquelin’s observation of the angularity of Mars within certain personality types is of astrological interest, but it wouldn’t find inclusion in the Misplaced Pages article on Divination.Zac Δ talk 19:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, so you know where I'm coming from - I have an interest in astrology. That interest is mainly in the history and divinatory branches of astrology. The suggestion of astrology being divinatory does not offend my interest in the slightest. But it is incorrect.

With respect Ocaasi it is also misleading for readers of the main page, who will not have followed your rather complex and subjective argument in detail. Your defence of the statement "Astrology is a system of divination" makes sense according to what you think, but only based on your particular understanding of a certain sense of the word 'divinition' in a certain way. (22nd June) If the comment in the lede is unsatisfactory to several contributors here, it would be better to find another that evades that issue whilst adhering to WP policy of being referenced to a reputable, reliable source. (I realise this is exactly what Slrubenstein has been saying) Zac Δ talk 20:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zachariel. Thre word "divinatory" is not the best description of astrology as it pushes astrology too much into the esoteric direction. For example the internationally recognized researcher of premodern science, Dr. Otto Neugebauer in "The Exact Sciences in Antiquity" states "Compared with the background of religion, magic and mysticism, the fundamental doctrines of astrology are pure science." p 171 Terry Macro (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but we're no longer in antiquity. In the modern era, astrology *is* esoteric. The non-esoteric part split off as astronomy centuries ago. — kwami (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, your comment is sounding like WP:OR. Astronomy has always been integral in astrology and astrologers have never ethno-cleansed astronomy from astrology. Otto was not talking in the past tense - he stated "... the fundamental doctrines of astrology *are* pure science". We don't have to interpret scholarly insights. Terry Macro (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Then he's an idiot. Modern astrology has nothing to do with science, except as pretense. And since modern astronomy is a science, astronomy is no longer integral to astrology. We'd have to limit "astronomy" to what it was before the scientific revolution. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to qualify scholarly opinion on astrology by a mainstream, famous and highly respected academic. If

"Modern astrology has nothing to do with science" then this needs a citation to be included on the topic - but it also needs contrary input from such respected sources as Otto. We don't have to limit or expand anything - but we must draw upon academic texts. This is not meant to be a forum on astrology - our ideas are irrelevant unles they are published in a suitable form. Another relevant input is Professor Richard Tarnas in his book "Cosmos and Psyche" where folowing 30 years of academic research demonstrates the "direct connection between planetary movements and the archetypal patterns of human expereince" - in other words astrology. There is no doubt that mainstream academics reject astrology as a quaint ancient practice based on superstition and divination, and followed by deluded modern practitioners but this is not universal and there needs to be some acknowledgement of some acedemic input from people like Professor Richard Tarnas. However Otto was not an astrologer so his input on astrology from a mainstream perspective is highly relevant. Its easy to call him an idiot but do people source your books for knowledge? Terry Macro (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because there are so-called 'divinatory branches' within astrology, does not mean that the rest of astrology is not divination according to the definition that WP gives for it.

Just because astrology uses some objective information about positions of the planets and stars, doesn't imply that its next (and defining) step, linking these planet positions to human affairs, is not divination.

Aristotle's celestial harmony sounds very nice, but as long as no evidence is found or produced for its effects on human affairs, it remains divination.

The lede gives a general description/definition of the topic of the article. If some people think that 'divination' is not the right word to use, then they can start by telling what would be a better word to use. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what astrology is if not divination. The whole point is it attempts to make predictions about various aspects of people and events based on the positions of the planets. If you take away the divination from astrology all you'd be left with is obsolete astronomy. Mystylplx (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The 'essence' of astrology is not in the planet positions, which are determined in a scientific way. The essence of astrology is in the conclusions (about human and other affairs) that are made on the basis of these planet positions, and that is a kind of divination. It makes no difference whether tea leaves or planet positions are used for divination. Things would change if sufficient evidence is produced that there is some connection between planet positions and human affairs. Then 'divination' can be scrapped in the definition here. Nobody is stopping astrologers from producing such evidence and having it peer reviewed. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Terrymacro, I propose that you add Neugebauer’s quote to the Astrology and Science section. Does anyone object?

Hello again Mystylplx and MakeSense64 . It is now time we all moved on from personal opinions/beliefs here. These points have been raised and are not supported by independent definitions. Unless you can verify that divination is no more than prediction and that astrology is limited to prediction or that divination is defined as drawing conclusions that are not supported by scientific evidence, these assumptions (rightly or wrongly) have to be ignored as WP:OR. MakeSense64, the question of objective evidence to support astrology has recently become highly debatable, but it is not relevant to this topic.

MakeSense64, you asked what word is better than divination. I have suggested that editors here provide a range of modern definitions from Encyclopedias or by well known named experts. They should be neutral and not so narrow that they exclude certain aspects, characteristics or applications of the term.

Since we have only had the original proposals by Paul Quigley, I will add my own inferior dictionary sources. Mindful that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC, they at least illustrate that besides divination (included) there is a range of other defining terms.

• Astrology: “Divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects” Meriam-Webster on the web.

However, my hard copy bound English English equivalents define astrology as follows:

• Astrology: “Art of judging reputed occult influence of stars, planets etc on human affairs.” – Concise Oxford Dictionary based on the OED, OUP (1987)
• Astrology: “Study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs.” Oxford Compact English Dictionary, OUP (1996) “a compact edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary.”
• Astrology: “Study of the supposed influence of the movement and the positions of the stars and planets on human and terrestrial affairs.” Chambers Dictionary, 11th Edition, Chambers Harrap Publishers (2009).

Robert Currey talk 14:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A few points. Divination is not unsystematic. It can be a rigorous and rationalized method, but it's still at its heart interpretation of the meaning of physical phenomenon, hence divination. Robert, your definitions include 'divination', 'art of judging occult influence', 'study of positions...interpreted as having influence', and 'study of supposed influence'. I genuinely think that the word divination is the common thread between all of those. Studying astronomical influences and extrapolating human interpretations is divination. I don't know a better word for it. Ocaasi 17:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Not every dictionary in the world is using the word 'divination' in its description of astrology, but that doesn't mean we should drop the word from the definition here. Divination is the best word to give a broad definition for astrology, and I don't see any better one being proposed here. If we can't improve the definition then keep it as it is. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The only one-word definition for astrology is 'astrology'. In case it has been forgotten, let's remember that a better, more appropriately sourced, and more up-to-date broad definition was suggested by Paul Quigley when he opened this discussion:

"Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated" - The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing, 2 Vols. London: Fitzroy Dearborn 1999, Vol. 1, pp 55-7 (p. 55)).

Does anyone have a valid reason why this comment, which is more appropriate to what the reader understands and wants to know, should not be adopted in the lede? This does not mean that the reference to divination must go, but this corrects the false notion that astrology in entirely divinatory Zac Δ talk 21:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"A valid reason"? I can give you several. Firstly, we'd have to cite it as a quotation, which looks messy in a lede. Secondly, an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, and we prefer to use secondary sources, and thirdly, I see no reason to see why "The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing" should be seen as in any way an authority on whether astrology is divination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If you google "define astrology," you will get, among others, the following definition, attributed to en.wikipedia.org/Astrology (this article): "Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. A practitioner of astrology is called an astrologer." This presumably earlier Misplaced Pages definition avoids the ambiguity of "divination" and is quite informative. Can we bring it back?

Ocaasi, you have a sophisticated understanding of divination and perhaps there is a source that explains it as clearly as you do. If astrology is divination, it is a type of divination that is quite apart from others because it is systematic, rigorous, and rationalized. Obviously it is based on the observation of natural cycles and relies heavily on an extensive literature of case studies and theory. These are not the ordinary associations with divination, especially in view of the arguments of Kwami and MakeSense64, which have drawn the discussion toward the ambiguity problem and not away from it.

AndyTheGump, Historian Patrick Curry is a respected academic authority on astrology and his definition authored in the Encyclopeaia of Historians and Historical Writing should qualify as a legitimate Misplaced Pages source. His definition should not be judged solely because of its authority (which it has) but because it is also clear, concise, informative, and unambiguous. Ken McRitchie (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"it is systematic, rigorous, and rationalized. Obviously it is based on the observation of natural cycles and relies heavily on an extensive literature of case studies and theory. These are not the ordinary associations with divination". I don't think that's true. Where divination was serious business—and with the fate of the empire at stake, it very often was serious business—I suspect that these qualities were characteristic of most professional forms of divination. Are you suggesting that I Ching divination did not rely on an extensive literature? Or that palmistry did not use case studies? (to the extent that astrology does, anyway!) Take a look at lithomancy. Granted, astrology is particularly well developed, but that's a matter of degree, not a difference in kind. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

All types of divination are quite apart from the others, and many of them are systematic and rationalized. For example 'numerology' and 'technical analysis' , all of which are also listed in the Methods of divination. Technical analysis uses even more advanced mathematical techniques than astrology, so?

It is true that sometimes a distinction is being made between divination and fortune-telling, as you can see in their respective articles. One could make the case the astrology has elements of both, so the opening of the lede could be changed to "Astrology is a system of divination and fortune-telling founded on the notion that..." MakeSense64 (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

@ Ken. Here are a few sources adding to the astrology as divination position:

• Yahoo's directory categorizes Astrology under Divination:
• Geoffrey Cornelius wrote a book called: The moment of astrology, Origins in divination
• Here's a 1995 book called, Mesopotamian astrology: an introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian celestial divination:
• This book on the history of astrology references divination frequently:

In fairness, some sources mention astrology separately from divination. I personally think that's more because astrology as divination succeeded in gaining widespread popularity--it spread and stabilized--not that it formally distinguishes itself from the category. We seem to be torn between astrology is divination, and astrology is part divination. If we take divination to include systematic interpretation of physical phenomena rather than merely prophecy based on omens, I still think divination is the best word. That said, astrology is still a practice, a study, and a craft... but it's a practice, a study, and a craft of rationalized celestial divination, the practice of relating and interpreting planetary positions to human personality, behavior, and life-events. Noting, that rationalized/widespread/established and logical/scientific/proven are different. Astrology from what I can divine from our non-astrologer sources is the first. Ocaasi 06:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because a certain practice is systematic and rationalized, that doesn't take it out of the category of 'divination'. Different forms of divination basically differ in what they use as 'omens' in their work. The omen can be numbers, coins that have fallen, positions of stars in the sky, lines in the hand, and so on.. The key element is that a certain phenomenon is 'believed' to foretell human and terrestial affairs. That element is clearly present in astrology. So it is divination. It doesn't make any difference how well developed, systematic or rationalized the practice might be.

A given belief based practice can only stop being divination if sufficient evidence or proof is found for the working of the system. Then its use will be no longer a matter of 'belief' or subjective interpretation. Then it becomes a field of scientific 'study', and then we can change the lede accordingly. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again the discussion has slipped into a concern with the definition of divination, which is not the subject of this page.

I asked for valid objections to the introduction of the proposed edit and AndyTheGrump suggested:

"Firstly, we'd have to cite it as a quotation, which looks messy in a lede".

- Messy or not (I see no reason why it will be), WP policy expressely states that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". Since this is a disputed point, which is being challenged, we must adhere to that policy.

"Secondly, an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, and we prefer to use secondary sources"

- in cases such as this, where secondary sources run the danger of contradicting each other, tertiary sources are preferred. WP policy states: "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other". (There are many valid ways to introduce a subject, but some introductions need justification by additional argument. At a point where that cannot be given, it is best to avoid those sorts of introductions and select one that is broader and avoids contentious arguments.)

"and thirdly, I see no reason to see why "The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing" should be seen as in any way an authority on whether astrology is divination".

It is not necessary for the lede to pursue this point at all - the lede should briefly introduce, based on the summary position of what follows in the article. We are not going to produce *the authoritative* statement, but should aim for a reliable and credible remark verified by reference to a respectable published source. We have that here - we are introducing astrology not developing our own talk-page thesis on what the true extent and nature of divination is.

To avoid this discussion turning into a timesink, can we stick to policy and avoid all talk-page discussions of what astrology is, based on what any editor here may 'personally' think? It has been sufficiently accepted that some sources mention astrology separately from divination, therefore the lede comment, which suggests otherwise, is in need of modification. The question here is - is there anything in the new proposal that could be considered unreliable? If so, what? and why? Zac Δ talk 07:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed edit is not 'unreliable' because it repeats the information that is already there. The big difference is in what your proposed edit leaves out, specifically the term 'divination'. There is no good reason to leave that term out. WP already lists astrology as a 'method of divination', and astrology fits in with the definition for 'divination' that WP gives for it. The idea that astrology is a science is a small minority view, mentioned later in the article, so that is no reason to remove 'divination' in the lede. There is clearly no concensus that the lede needs to be changed, so yes, let's stick to policy and move on. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's worth clarifying the proposal. Paul Quigley has proposed a replacement for the first sentence because

"The statement that astrology 'is' divination is misleading .... It also fails to account for radically different views of what divination is. I would suggest replacing this statement with a definition of astrology, such as Patrick Curry's, which might then in turn lead to a discussion of astrology as different phenomena - as magic, spirituality, science, pseudo-science, art, religion, psychology, or any of the other descriptions of it. Curry wrote: ‘Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated’ (Curry, Patrick, ‘Astrology’, in Boyd, Kelly (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing, 2 Vols. London: Fitzroy Dearborn 1999, Vol. 1, pp 55-7 (p. 55)). By the way, I see no reason why this page can't be improved without controversy by balanced attention to both scholarly and primary sources.Paul Quigley (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a very sensible suggestion so the editor should be encouraged down this path. As I understand it the opening sentence would then read:

Astrology is the practice of relating the heavenly bodies to lives and events on earth, and the tradition that has thus been generated.(ref) It is founded on the notion that the relative positions of celestial bodies are signs of or—more controversially among astrologers—causes of destiny, personality, human affairs, and natural events. The primary astrological bodies are the sun, moon, and planets; although astrology is commonly characterized as "reading the stars", the stars (other than the sun) actually play a minor role. The main focus is on the placement of the seven planets relative to each other and to the signs of the zodiac, though the system does allow reference to fixed stars, asteroids, comets, and various mathematical points of interest as well. As a craft, astrology is a combination of basic astronomy, numerology, and mysticism. In its modern form, it is a classic example of pseudoscience.

This is not unreliable nor is it contentious nor does it present the notion that astrology is a science. This does however do what a lede is supposed to do - open the subject in broad terms so that it can be explored in greater depth without incorrect assumptions being made at the start. We cannot worry about everything that is left out of the first sentance - a great deal of relevant description has to be left out at this stage. It's more essential that the sparse introductory detail is not false or controversial, as the current first sentence clearly is. My recommendation is that the proposed edit, being reliably sourced and entirely appropriate, is made; no good reason to deny the obvious advantage of not having controversy in the first sentence Zac Δ talk 09:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of good reasons have been brought against your proposed change. It is very common , and good encyclopedia style, to start the lede by stating to what category of things the topic of the article belongs. For astrology the most fitting category is 'divination'. It is not misleading at all. I recommend no change. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This definition is superior, more concise (as a sentence) and less contentious than the current definition imposed in March. It is not my ideal as I see astrology as a study which includes the practice of astrology. However, I support this proposed edit provided that divination is included within the lede paragraph as it remains an important part of astrology. Robert Currey talk 09:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Divination and psychology can be added to the "As a craft" statement but the numerology and mysticism are not accurate. They must have come from a faulty source. Ideally, I'd suggest that "craft" be replaced with "practice" and "practice in the first sentence with "study." After all it is an "-ology." Ken McRitchie (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There are other examples of "-ology" that are no longer considered a serious 'study', for example phrenology. They once where a 'study' and just kept their name. The phrenology article opens by stating that it is a pseudoscience.

People who think astrology is a science will want to see it described as '.. is the study of...' in the opening statements, because that's how real sciences are typically defined. People who think it is not a science will want to see it categorized as '.. is a system of divination..' or '..is a pseudoscience..' in the opening statement. We will not be able to solve that question here, and it is also not our job to do so. The astrology article itself mentions that about 31% of people believe in astrology and some 39% think it is a science. So that's the minority view. WP guidelines also state that astrology is a pseudoscience. So, using NPOV we have to go with the majority view and reflect that in the opening statement. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Treer, 5 July 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change

<ref> Retrieved 2009-9-12.</ref><ref>Jennifer Viegas.  Retrieved 2009-9-12.</ref>

to

<ref> Retrieved 2011-7-5.</ref><ref>Jennifer Viegas.  Retrieved 2011-7-5.</ref>

as citations 8 and 9 are broken links, i.e.

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/u-case2.htm should be updated to http://www.astrology-and-science.com/u-case2.htm

and http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htm should be updated to http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/04/25/1623400.htm

Retrieved 5 July 2011

Treer (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• 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