User talk:Robertcurrey

By the fourth cup the heavens sparkled...

Since you're British. And we have this new WikiLove feature. Unlike a chart reading, it portends nothing, it's just soothing and civilizing. Cheers. Ocaasi t | c 05:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:JohnDrummondLordStrange.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JohnDrummondLordStrange.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A few common misunderstandings

Part 1

• Perhaps the first thing that contributors struggle with here is that our core policy states we are concerned with Verifiability not Truth. Those words have a very specific meaning. Specifically, it means that we look up what reliable sources say--reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy--and then we include points of view to reflect those reliable sources, in proportion to the amount of attention they receive in the reliable sources. It also means that we may ultimately be wrong. That is something we accept, and our only claim is to be as right as reliable sources are.

• You made the claim that Wikipedia must consider experts, but actually, we only consider reliable sources. It so happens that our society and our community has decided that mainstream academic and science publications are reliable and astrologers are not. Of course, that only applies to the scientific aspects of claims. Astrologers may be extremely reliable when it comes to claims about astrology's history, ideology, practice, current developments, etc. But that doesn't mean their view of its scientific legitimacy can be considered reliable.

• It's great that you're interested in this subject and doing research. Once that research is published and recognized by mainstream sources, we can perhaps include it. It may be that mainstream sources will never publish it, out of a bias against astrology; hopefully in that case we could reference it as a minority point of view. But you have to realize what minority points of view mean. It does not mean that "most people say the world is round but some say the world is flat". It means we say that the world is round and then in a paragraph at the bottom of the page we mention that since time began some people have maintained, first from simple observation, and later against scientific evidence, that the world is actually flat. Proportion matters. Sources matter. It may be the case that Wikipedia will never get the whole story about astrology, because mainstream sources never do. That would be unfortunate, but our policy requires it. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be the last to know. Basically, if you want to convince the world that astrology is a science, you have to go somewhere else first.

• Editors may sound like they're speaking for the Truth, but really, they are just reflecting our policy and reliable sources. Until you closely read WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE none of this will make sense.

• Something you might consider is that there is someone similar to you in every single field: homeopathy, dowsing, UFOs, big foot, conspiracy theories... I don't intend to lump you in with them, but as a serious thinker you have to consider whether all of them are valid just because some of their proponents can make a claim to science or point to minor studies which do so. How would you justify your claims more than theirs? Do you think they are all equally plausible, scientific, or valid? What burden of proof is required for those who want to make such claims? The point comes back to extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. If you want to be different that the guy who claims he can move objects with his mind and the girl who has remote visions of what happens in foreign countries... you have to have more than a plausible argument, a handful of papers, and commentary (however analytical) on old research.

• Please let me know if you have any questions. Ocaasi (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments, Ocaasi which I much appreciate.

• Basically, if you want to convince the world that astrology is a science, you have to go somewhere else first.
  I am not trying to convince anyone that astrology is a science as I don’t make that claim and I was the first to propose that the practice by most astrologers is an art or a craft. Parts of astrology like the tides are part of established science but other parts especially those involving human beings are either in the realm of proto-science or art. It is misleading to claim that the entire field being described as a pseudoscience and the only argument is (outdated) historical opinion and that mainstream science (though ignorant) believes it is.

• The problem I have is that the Wikipedia Astrology page has been trashed by sceptics for years including citing tests that have not been published. I can live with the claim that most scientists believe that astrology is a pseudoscience, but to claim more than this is to hand neutrality into the agenda of a sceptical minority.

• Thanks, I do need to read the rules – I did have a look at some of them.

• Does it state in the Wiki rules “As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be the last to know”?

• In your analogy I feel like I am claiming the world is round and in a minority and everyone ‘knows’ it is flat. In that situation would you work towards truth or enforce rules that lock into the flat earth model? I cannot be part of any rule system that suppresses the truth.

• How am I different from the guy who believes in Big Foot? Good question. There is no way of verifying Big Foot. Though I would certainly investigate whatever evidence is provided before passing judgement. There are ways of empirically testing astrology. In my experience the vast majority of critics have not even had their chart done or read a single book by an astrologer or are prepared to look at the evidence or even know what it is. Astrology has gone through a revolution in the last 50 years and most scientists don't even know. I did test out homeopathy twice and found that it did not ‘work’ for me, but I couldn’t rule it out for others on that basis. I am a sceptical astrologer and can tolerate other people's beliefs but have a problem with denial of evidence being taught like Creationism. The other point is I don't know if you have met any qualified professional astrologers, (and I am excluding media astrologers. In my experience, they are well above average intelligence and there's a high percentage of Masters & PhDs, polymaths and there is a Mensa group of astrologers in Texas compared many fields even though it is not possible to study astrology at Uni per se. Of course this doesn't make it valid, but it is worth considering that maybe they have identified something.

• Where is the best place to put my case within Wikipedia as it appears that I am hitting my head against a brick wall?

• I am not happy with the anonymity on Wiki. It's ironic that people hiding behind pseudonyms are denouncing astrology as a pseudoscience! I suppose it reduces ad hominems but it also gives unlimited scope for people to promote their own agendas.

There is an exchange on http://www.quora.com/ as to Why do so many people dislike Wikipedia as a source for information? This Q&A site may take over from Wiki in some areas in the future. As an editor, you might like to contribute an answer. But generally, there is a huge dissatisfaction and frustration within my field and for those interested in finding out about astrology that Wiki trashes astrology in a way that no encyclopedia did in the past. It's time to clean up the act.

Have you ever seen the play The Life of Galileo by Bertolt Brecht? I saw it when I was 16 and his stand for the truth against the mighty Catholic Church was an enormous inspiration to me. He has always been a hero of mine and it is only in recent years that I discovered that the father of modern science (acc. Stephen Hawking et al) was also an astrologer. Robertcurrey (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

part 2

{this is in response to recent comments at Astrology/ I'll respond to your above comments a bit later}.

• Your knowledge of scientific theory/history/philosophy is a very nice asset. FYI, I'm not 'a skeptic', at least not as a rule, though I find Astrology to particularly warrant it. For me, the difference between magnetism, continental drift, cancer, and other non-mechanism situations is that there was overwhelming physical or statistical evidence that something was happening. It's probably more appropriate to say that lack of a known mechanism in combination with no clear correlation is a fool's errand. Without either a machine or a destination, you're just walking around.

• I know you feel very differently about the state of evidence w/r/t astrology, and I think you have a fair claim that in some corner of the field there really is valid statistical research going on which has nothing to do with what happens if you call the phone-number in the back of a newspaper for 1.99/minute. Still, as most of the world practices and understands it, Astrology is a form of divination and mythology, a wonderful interpretative, interactive, and human art, and a complete ruse. I won't ask presumptuous questions like why would the planets have any ability to effect human behavior, since those kinds of questions are no longer reasonable in light of scientific history and particularly quantum science. But more to the point what is the correlation?

• I do have respect for systems that have their roots in lay observation, trial and error, and cultural evolution--which is what characterizes most of traditional/herbal medicine. But what most of those systems lack is the Popperian challenges of falsification. Those crafts were often passed on like religious creeds, with the most charismatic individuals shifting the course of study. In science, each new idea gets its head bashed in through the gauntlet of extraordinary claims. When has astrology in its history ever been shown to survive rigorous attempts--not at confirmation--but at refutation? It's very easy to keep shifting goalposts, claiming studies were designed poorly, saying that horoscopic astrology is not the answer, then saying that studies have to be accurate to the birth-second to be valid... in short making any number of conditions necessary for the results to hold in favor of astrology without any rational explanation why those must be so. If there is some state of tests which can reliably (not requiring any human interpretation) and validly (not requiring any fudging of benchmarks) show there is a connection between planetary movement and human personality traits or behavior, it has yet to be shown convincingly, and certainly yet to be shown to the academic mainstream.

• Again, I think your field of study is very interesting, and it's obviously given you lots to think about with regards to scientific processes, and you probably are more honest and serious than many who have pursued it before you or promote it today, and there's a whit of possibility that you'll find something extremely important. But you can't really expect Wikipedia to reflect any notion that it's happened already, or that a meaningful minority of scholars accept its premise or plausibility. If you 'prove' astrology, you'll be a paradigm-shattering scientist. That kind of thing doesn't happen with people inviting you into their houses to smash their paradigms. And it certainly doesn't happen at an encyclopedia, which really is the last to know:
• So my recommendation is to pursue three changes to the article, and really only these.

1. Push to have the lead changed to "Astrology is widely considered a pseudoscience". That's the best you can do.
2. Add lots of summary information about what different astrologers actually do. Birth times and planetary positions and planetary movements and phases and the whole deal.
3. Add a section on 'modern' astrology, and describe some of the changes that have happened in the last half-century, particularly a shift away from horoscopes to a more statistically oriented practice. Describe where that research has happened and that the research is happening, but do not assert any of it as true or even plausible. It won't make it.
4. Go back to doing your research. More important that you find the answers than that Wikipedia does. It will eventually. Ocaasi (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

part 3

• You asked: "Does it state in the Wiki rules 'As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be the last to know?'" That's a very interesting question. I'll try to answer. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, a tertiary source that is as far removed from original research as possible. Not only do we not engage in research as editors, we do not generally even report the research of those who do research. As a best practice, we report on those who report on those who do research, and only when those doing the reporting have a reputation for doing it well. In epistemology, there are different ways of knowing. Wikipedia is not a method of knowing. It is not a truth-ascertaining body. It is an information filtering body. Which information gets through? Whatever information is reported in reliable sources. Does this mean some information that gets through that is false? Yes, until reliable sources correct it. Does this mean that some information is kept out which is true? Yes, until reliable sources report it.

• Please read WLU's explanation of how Wikipedia reflects current opinion rather than true opinion] closely. It is a great demonstration of how our policy interacts with reliable sources over time.

• You said: "In your analogy I feel like I am claiming the world is round and in a minority and everyone ‘knows’ it is flat. In that situation would you work towards truth or enforce rules that lock into the flat earth model? I cannot be part of any rule system that suppresses the truth." Wikipedia editors are making an encyclopedia. Suppressing the truth is never the goal, although it may be part of the collateral damage of our mission. From an encyclopedic perspective, which is generally a long one, there is far more risk to accept unfounded ideas and present them as valid than to reflect incorrect consensus and be slightly behind the curve. If this is what you mean by suppressing truth, than yes, we do a little. But not without reason. And not without a bigger purpose.

• To illustrate how seriously we take the notion of reporting on what reliable sources say and not doing our own research, sometimes even obvious factual errors reported by journalists can be difficult to fix. Even if there is another source which reports the accurate finding, until there are many of them, or they address the prior mistake specifically, we often end up reporting on both. Keep in mind that in this example, both sources are presumed reliable, so they both warrant equal weight. In the case of pseudoscience, the scientific sources are considered much more reliable than the alternative sources, so they warrant unequal weight. Although we take occasional license to WP:IGNORE ALL RULES, when to do so and when not to is a matter of art and discretion, and regardless of one's justification it often results in considerable backlash from those who want the rules to be consistent.

• Back to policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE to start with. Add to that list WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. And WP:CONSENSUS. Read Pseudoscience, which is just our encyclopedia article. These will take you a day, but they will explain a ton. Wikipedia also has a governing/adjudication structure in which the 'supreme court' is the Arbitration Committee (WP:ARBCOM). A very significant case about Pseudoscience went up to ArbCom. Their ruling is the reason there is strong consensus on these issues. You can read it here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, especially the ruling.

• This community is far more intelligent than it sometimes appears. My best advice is to actually spend time in other allegedly pseudoscientific field with which you are less familiar or to which you are presumably opposed. See the same arguments come up for each area, and then ask how Wikipedia should decide how to handle them all. Ocaasi (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

part 4

{a few I missed; note, if you'd like to respond individually to a *bulleted point, just type *: underneath it and it will appear indented properly below}

• There is no way of verifying Big Foot. I think that might be part of the problem. Big foot is certainly verifi-able. One could do what all zoologists do and find the actual animal, find its tracks, its droppings, see its nesting areas, or places it had disrupted, the carcasses it had disposed or the plants it had eaten. Big Foot is very verifiable in theory, there's just no good evidence to verify. I won't say that Astrology is necessary more or less verifiable, but suffice to say that it should be easier to find a physical, space-occupying mammal on planet Earth than an non-visible connection between planetary alignment and human consciousness, personality, behavior, or events. I won't say it's impossible, because weird things happen in the realm of verified science that we can't see or even understand. But there is evidence for them. That cannot be similarly said for Astrology, at the very least as reliable sources report it.

• "There are ways of empirically testing astrology. In my experience the vast majority of critics have not even had their chart done or read a single book by an astrologer or are prepared to look at the evidence or even know what it is. Astrology has gone through a revolution in the last 50 years and most scientists don't even know. I did test out homeopathy twice and found that it did not ‘work’ for me, but I couldn’t rule it out for others on that basis." Individuals should not dismiss their personal observations or experiences; however, when it comes to science, individual observation is not rigorous enough. There is an old saw that 'the plural of anecdote is not data'. This means that it doesn't matter how many individual recollections you get together, it doesn't equate to a study. Studies rely on observation and confirmation of measurable phenomena, not just people's opinions, memories, or reflections. The reason for this is that people's senses are biased. Psychologists have confirmed that we are continually vulnerable to confirmation bias, the phenomenon of discarding evidence that conflicts with our hypothesis and keeping that which confirms it. Needless to say, this is not a scientifically beneficial trait. There are a host of other biases which lead us to put our personal experience at the center of causation, even when it may have nothing to do with it. Our memories are spotty. Our feelings are ephemeral and multi-faceted. The categories of language we use are myriad, overlapping, and in flux. In short, as a scientific instrument, we suck. [But as scientists, we can triumph]. So personal experience is not a valid benchmark for scientific evidence. Gnostics will never be satisfied by this, since some things you just know, and Timothy Leary followers will aver that subjective experience is the most important thing (then again Leary devised his psychedelics in a chemistry lab, and not for nothing). Science--as defined--is the world of consistently, objectively, validly measurable phenomena that can withstand vigorous attempts at falsification. Anything else is part of a wonderful personal journey of discovery, but it does not scale to broader conclusions.

• So, even if you tried homeopathy twice and it 'didn't work for you', that only tells us very little. Maybe it was the wrong remedy. Maybe you didn't take it long enough. Maybe your body was still processing it's immune response. Maybe you weren't ill to begin with and it was just psychosomatic or dehydration or stress or indigestion or fatigue which needed to resolve separately. I happen to feel that homeopathy has a ridiculous premise, and reserve the right to call it pseudoscience because it is based on hyper-dilutions or arbitrary substances which are paired with nebulous symptoms and prescribed inconsistently through a process which combines intuition with tradition. There are indeed some overlaps there with allopathic medicine, but the differences make all the difference.

• "I am a sceptical astrologer and can tolerate other people's beliefs but have a problem with denial of evidence being taught like Creationism." I don't quite follow that. I think you mean that creationism denies evidence of evolution, but maybe you mean the opposite. If we're talking about Intelligent design, the theory of evolution simply has way more evidence than anything else, and even its ever-narrowing flaws are not proof of the alternate hypothesis that 'god did it'. That's just a logical fallacy, based in denying alternatives. If theory A says that lightning is caused by cloud-friction, and it proves to be inadequate, the next conclusion should not be, well it's Thor.

• "The other point is I don't know if you have met any qualified professional astrologers, (and I am excluding media astrologers. In my experience, they are well above average intelligence and there's a high percentage of Masters & PhDs, polymaths and there is a Mensa group of astrologers in Texas compared many fields even though it is not possible to study astrology at Uni per se. Of course this doesn't make it valid, but it is worth considering that maybe they have identified something." I have always loved the personalities that make up the world of tarot and astrology. They are warm, thoughtful, compassionate, imaginative, empathetic, consoling, and calming. They are often smart. I have to say, that if you stick a group of Master/PhD/Mensa/Polymaths in front of anything, they will do it better than most, but this doesn't make the cause planetary alignment--it probably makes the cause smart people! Smart people are great at making inferences from information, knowing how to ask probing questions, knowing how to discard extraneous information and connect the critical points. They are well-versed in language, story-telling, broad themes of narrative, they have collected nuggets of historical/traditional/esoteric/psychological through their conversations and reading. Who wouldn't want to talk to these people? But it's simply not science. I humbly hypothesize that many smart people are drawn to be Astrologers because they find the 'cold' calculating world of academia to not feed them in any deep way--does not actualize them. Many probably find Astrology to be a respite from their individual psycho-analyzing, and enjoy having a framework in which they can be guided and guide others. Many probably find it easier to connect in the personal setting of astrology than in complex and often superficial social interactions. Many are just lured, like all of us, by the prospect of meaning and answers, and have latched on to Astrology's beautiful and finely-structured program for doing that. None of that means it works, in the scientific sense. But it still may 'work' in the efficacy sense, the human sense, the placebo sense, the humans-function-best-with-narrative sense. But you have to compare apples to apples. If you took those PhD students and gave them other training, they could probably do some wonderful things as well. So we shouldn't compare PhD students doing Astrology to nothing, but PhD students doing Astrology doing whatever else they could be doing.

• "Where is the best place to put my case within Wikipedia as it appears that I am hitting my head against a brick wall?" The brick wall was placed by the community for this reason. You can join the growing chorus of people who find Wikipedia's standards too stringent and 'mainstream' (others say it's loose and liberal). You can explore other Wikis, such as those listed here: http://www.wikia.com/index.php?search=astrology&fulltext=0 . Or you can try and see if there's value to this approach and if it gives room to still explain how astrologers see their field without making scientific claims about it.

• Anonymity on wikipedia is a red herring. People can have agendas with it or not. Plus, we could rarely verify if people were who they said anyway. It's very important for a variety of personal and political reasons that people can express views and make contributions that they might not otherwise feel comfortable having the world know they made. Some people edit topic areas that are considered immoral, that could get them divorced or fired, persecuted by their governments, or targeted by fanatics. Luckily, arguments don't gain or lose legitimacy based on who made them. And people develop meaningful online personas anyway, with reputations that carry weight due to their history of being useful.

• I've never seen The Life of Galileo by Bertolt Brecht. I would like to mention that sometimes the right attitude can be applied to the wrong situation. Just because fighting for truth is worth dying for, doesn't mean everything someone is fighting for is true. Of course, if you believe Astrology is true the way the Earth is not the center of the universe, then I can only encourage you to use the evidence in such a way that others can be so persuaded.

• Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist of the highest caliber, so if he has an interest in astrology, I take it he understands the difference between the fields, and enjoys them for immensely different reasons, the latter having little or nothing to do with science.

• Hope this helps dispel some of the reactionary nature you and others have sensed from the site. Shoot back with any questions, or comments. Ocaasi (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ocaasi - lots to think about there and much helpful advice. Could you clarify your point about Stephen Hawking, please?

I started to reply and then realised that you address so much, I will need to set aside a quiet time to respond even though many of your points don't require a response. At the moment, I am quite behind with my work. Robertcurrey (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, at your leisure, and if you think it would be helpful. I edited the Hawking comment above to be more clear. I simply meant that I assume--I haven't read about his interest in astrology--that he understands its shortcomings as a predictive science and enjoys it for other reasons, mainly as a neat way to be entertained by our place in the universe, and as a vehicle to ask questions that science doesn't really care about, even if astrology can't provide reliable answers in a scientific sense. I realize astrology is a big part of your life and work, so I mean no offense by implying that it is not something I find credible; though I find it potentially still worthwhile, if you can understand the difference. Ocaasi (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that Hawking was interested in astrology. I think he is sceptical because he incorrectly believes astrologers never addressed the heliocentric model. I am not offended at all by anyone finding astrology incredible (in the literal sense) - I am offended by people who think that but never tell me. Robertcurrey (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread this sentence: "I saw it when I was 16 and his stand for the truth against the mighty Catholic Church was an enormous inspiration to me. He has always been a hero of mine and it is only in recent years that I discovered that the father of modern science (acc. Stephen Hawking et al) was also an astrologer." You meant Galileo was an astrologer. Ocaasi (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious what his writings on the topic say, if he was aware of the different approaches, or their respective founding on evidence. The truth is that at that time being a good astrologer probably helped one become a better astronomer, merely since it acquainted one so deeply with planetary movements. Much human intelligence is intuition, by that I mean rational conclusions that are arrived at through an subconscious process of contemplation and reflection. It's possible that his intuition about the stars which he developed from spending time with planetary charts through astrology helped him with his astronomy. This will sound wrong to you, but I mean it in the best way: to me, Astrology is like a game. It involves real skills. It requires attention and analysis. The best players are intensely focused and care about the outcome. There is a set of rules. There is a narrative. There are paths to take. Playing the game is not "real" but it is not trivial and can carry real-world insight and carry-over real world skills. In that it is free from some of the strictures of physics or rigorous logic, it is also a more creative endeavor. This doesn't mean it can tell you what will happen next, but it might make you think differently about it. Ok, your time. Ocaasi (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page note: Hi, Robert. I wrote to you personally. Brangifer left a note directing conversation here. Erekint pointed out my comment. Brangifer follows my posts, as I do his, since we often edit in similar areas. He thought it would be helpful for some of the other editors to read. Erekint did, and not shockingly, picked the one piece that advanced his position but seemed to gloss over the rest. Not a big deal, I actually invited him to look at your page since I thought it would be helpful and he and I had discussed Astrology briefly before. That is how WP (Wikipedia) works; it is not just public domain, it is is extremely public. Experienced users (you're welcome to be one) use the WP:WATCHLIST feature which allows tracking of hundreds or even thousands of articles in a reasonably efficient way. I track about 800 different pages, of which probably half are other editors and on any given day 200-300 will have something change. I look at what seems interesting or where I have been involved. Anyway, long story short, if you expect any kind of privacy, shoot me an email at wikiocaasi at yahoo dot com; no spaces, at=@. Or you can respond here so long as you feel comfortable with potential talk page watchers. Cheers. Ocaasi (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Major edit to astrology article now made

Mr Currey, the major change discussed in the astrology workpage has now been made. I have included your edits as discussed there, and invite you to check that I have accurately transcribed them to the article page. I have included notices on the workpage and the talk page, acknowledging your work.

Should I have made errors in transcribing your edits, and you are unable to correct them, please raise the matter in the astrology talk page (not the work page, which I think now needs to be closed).

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter S Strempel I will go there right now.Robert Currey (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back. Ocaasi ^c 13:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you are on the ball. It was hard but I managed to resist checking WP while on holiday! Robert Currey talk 13:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done sir. You didn't miss much at astrology. You're the only one who knows anything about it who's still allowed to edit there! Ocaasi ^c 14:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

The section on the talk page is an argumnt over whether astrology should be characterized as a form of divination. Note 90 is one of the sources being used right now to support this claim. I do not think that the source used in note 90 says that astrology is a form of divination, nor do I think it is a good source for this kind of claim. I think we should look to historians, sociologists, or anthropologists who have conducted research on astrology as the prefered source for such claims. I think is is fine to use sources written by astrologers to represent the view of astrologers, and this view should be in the article, but in general we should look for scholarly sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Note 90 appears after note 89 and before note 91. I do not know how else to explain it. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition

• Briefly, in case it's still unclear, note 90 is the number of the reference. You can see those numbers in the text after the sentence where a source is cited. And that number links to a full reference at the bottom of the page.
• There is precedent in several areas for formulating a 'complex' and 'contested' definition. That process usually involves a few components
  1. Finding definitions among all relevant reliable sources
  2. Weighing the prevalence of certain characteristics against their prevalence in sources and the quality of those sources
  3. Covering both sides in proportion to the attention they receive in the sources, effectively laying out any debate
• Ideally, we would be able to formulate a 'broad' definition, but it may be the case that the mainstream definition (divination) differs from the professional definition (science without a known mechanism). In that case the WP:FRINGE policy applies, as does WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV more generally and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE more specifically. Those basically say we cover the definition that is most widely accepted (not the widest definition) and then we go on to layout any disagreements about the definition, including explaining how the profession defines itself and any criticism the profession has with the mainstream definition.
• Off hand, that might look something like: "Astrology is a system of divination, a process of reading planetary position and alignment to analyze people's personalities and the major events that will take place in their lives. Astrology is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream astrologers, since there is not confirmed evidence of a correlation between planets and human behavior nor is their an understood or plausible mechanism. Astrologers, especially ones who rigorously analyze planetary positions as part of their craft, believe that the lack of a mechanism does not mean Astrology is a pseudoscience or divination but that it is a science that has yet to be understood. Mainstream scientists reject the notion that Astrology is or will be scientific, based on current understanding of astronomy, psychology, and physics.
• You can expect experienced editors to typically reply wherever a conversation starts. You don't receive an automatic notification of such a reply, but you can WP:WATCHLIST a page so that you know when it's updated. Also, some editors leave WP:Talkback messages alerting you to a response. Since you wish to not make Wikipedia your life, I'll just respond on your talk page. You can respond here or on my page; I should see it either way. Cheers!

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Notes

• I see that divination has a connotation some find trivializing. I mean divination in a systematic, rationalized form (rationalized as in codified, not necessarily as in rigorously logical). I believe your daily practice is far less like divination than like research mixed with interpretation, but the legacy of patterns to me has divination at its root. To you those patterns are just in existence and astrologers merely noted them, empirically. I've often wondered where those supposed correlations originated. Why is Aries impulsive? I don't presume the truth behind that question; by it, I mean, who decided that Aries' were that way? Do astrologers believe this was just a evolutionary observation that became codified and deduced back to planetary positions? Or is there a connection to planetary characteristics, i.e. Aries is affiliated with a hot planet; therefore Aries have that core trait? What is your theory of the origin of astrological correlations historically? Second, do you think those connections are natural (scientific) or human-constructed (pseudoscience/divination) or somewhere in between.
• In the original definition that I proposed, divination was only a component rather than the defining characteristic. I still think taken broadly divination is the best word to describe it, but I see how astrology differs in some degree from reading tea leaves. But, if there were tomes of instructions on how to read tea leaves, I see tea leaves approaching astrology. The root seems to be the same--astrology just has more detail layered on top of it. To me, of course.
• This article seems worth reading. It uses divination in the spiritual sense of intuition, but raises some worthwhile points: [1]
• Yahoo's directory categorizes Astrology under Divination: [2]
• Geoffrey Cornelius wrote a book called: The moment of astrology, Origins in divination [3]
• Here's a 1995 book called, Mesopotamian astrology: an introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian celestial divination: [4]
• This book on the history of astrology references divination frequently: [5]
• In fairness, many sources reference astrology separately from divination as well. I personally think that's just because as divination it succeeded in gaining widespread popularity--it spread and stabilized--not that it formally graduated from the category.
• In sum I can't see how we exclude divination, although in its most modern and most rigorous form astrology may be so well systematized that it doesn't feel like divination. But where there is art, and where there is no scientific proof (my working assumption), I don't see how astrology can not be either divination or pseudoscience. Or, perhaps a very misunderstood protoscience that is so far outside of mainstream acceptance that for Wikipedia's purposes it is basically one of the two aforementioned options.
• Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Divination?

Thanks for these useful articles, Ocaasi. I am still following up these links, though I accept that Geoffrey Cornelius makes an erudite case for divination. Please, can you list numerically the most compelling arguments why you consider that divination should be in the first sentence as the ideal label for the entire field of astrology? There is no need to go into detail, just the outline of the argument. I think as the original author of this edit, you are best placed to make the case. Robert Currey talk 11:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input recently

Thanks for the posts you made recently which helped to restore sanity to arguments losing touch with common sense. I noticed the Wikipedia entry on you has now been tagged for attention from the editor you were in the content dispute with. Well, I can't see any logic for the tags myself, but have come to realise that a lot of the subject-related criticsms are not arising out of logical reasoning. I noticed you don't have any userboxes on your page, and thought you might like this one. Cheers, Zac Δ talk 09:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Hi Robert Just want to make sure you see this - would value your opinion, Thanks Zac Δ talk 22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astrology#Proposed_change_for_astrology_box

The astrology vote

Dear Robert, I am replying to you here in detail, and later on the talk page more succinctly because this discussion is a distraction from the vote proposal.

Yes, I am asking apple pie and motherhood because I fear that the issue must be addressed once and for all to stop the incessant semantic bickering about what most editors in a vast majority of other articles just accept as Wikipedia standards. But not at astrology.

I cannot agree with your second point. What is demonstrably occurring for the very reasons you cite is that illegitimate introductions to articles are presented to the world as fact on the basis of illegitimate content, and legitimacy is indefinitely delayed by very deliberate attempts to prolong and exacerbate debate about every damned thing except the guerrilla style addition of ever more unverifiable content, and an alarming trend to rely on equally unverifiable content in sub-pages to reference unverified assertions on the main page.

The end result, it appears to me, is that Wikipedia presents to the world as a matter of fact propositions that are actually under intense dispute. That is not a strategy I intend to support, and if the word razor is the only way to top this from continuing, that’s what I propose to do. But you will note I have not yet resorted to that method, hoping this vote might make it unnecessary.

When you speak of the time and effort others have put into freestyle, unreferenced rambles, spare a second to think about what a huge waste of time the word razor is for me, and what a massive pain in the arse it is to read and assess all content and references cited.

I think you know me well enough to understand that I am a rationalist, and not given to undeserved good faith trust, warm fuzzies, or to sentimentality, but also not to unreasoning hostility to the topic, to non-scientific methods, or to astrologers. What I can’t fathom is the paucity of actual detail about methods and practices. It seems to me that if some of the more enthusiastic authors in the astrology talk page spent more time fleshing these out rather than arguing every fucking point over and over, this article would probably already be suitable for FA nomination rather than stuck in a permanent war.

Is it just me or does that seem like a completely irrational pursuit and a massive waste of time? It is for that reason that I am looking for the only means of making any progress at all, which is not the debate merry go round, but the focus of discussion on verifiable content, and article introductions that reflect such content rather than separate and ridiculous semantic arguments.

I’m not sure what you mean by your third point, but the Arbcom ruling says: ‘Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.’ Is there another Arbcom ruling I’m not aware of? My intent here is to reassert as obstructionism any gradual, incremental challenge to the cited ruling or any stated Wikipedia policy. As for the ‘classic example’ stuff, it should live or die according to verifiable references in their proper context, as should all content. But that has nothing to do with my call for a vote.

Robert, you know that if this new cycle of warfare isn’t broken soon, another intervention by admins will be brought on, probably with people banned and content dictated, not discussed at all, possibly via another Arbcom ruling. I trust that such an outcome is the last thing you or I would prefer. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your note. You are working into the night on this.

The astrology page has been a mess for many years and redefining astrology as divination in March went against conventional wisdom, scholarship, history, verifiable sources and WP policy. The debate should never have gone on for so long, but hopefully we have now moved on from what you call month of ‘semantic bickering’ to constructive editing by editors like Zac who appear to know what they are doing. Respected editor Ocaasi was good enough to comment to me (in comparison with the banned editors) "You and Zac are in a different category and have made sincere attempts to cover the subject while adhering to policy. It's appreciated, but in this contentious an area, continued debate is somewhat expected." I am watching the edits. Certainly the structure, content and flow is improving and Zac has added a section for Criticisms, kept pseudoscience in the lede and is generally being even-handed.

I support your objectives that everything controversial or questionable is verified and the lede should reflect the body. However, the body needs editing – and I would like to start on the science section asap. I think you should tag anything that is uncited to alert the editors as they go along. If you are not happy with any bold edits, you could join in the various threads relating to the edits rather than start new ones as these can become distractions to editors.

I am still not 100% clear on what we are voting on. If I say, I vote for Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings will that be sufficient? Robert Currey talk 13:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert, it seems that shortly anything I have to say won't happen here. It seems that my fundamental assumption about Wikipedia has been wrong all along. I always thought of it as an experiment to build an encyclopaedia. It seems to be more of an experiment in couch-potato American democracy, applied to re-defining all of history as an essentially American experience. That's a bit of a grand notion in itself, and it doesn't deserve to be 'blown off', as the Yanks would say. But that's not what I came here for.

I wish you the best of luck. Thanks for your courtesies in a sometimes discourteous (American) environment. Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, as I think you know, I shall be sorry to see you go. I know we had a different perspective on astrology, but your disciplined approach to verification was very instructive to me. If you are not around, I intend to try to enforce the same objective standards towards referencing. I hope you will not mind, if I occasionally ask your advice. Robert Currey talk 06:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

So, I'm baffled: why did you undo my uncollapse, only to announce that you're happy to end the report? Leaving it collapsed would have been better William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wanted my comments to be read and didn't think most people would bother to open up the collapse. Is there a procedure for closing these reports? I have no objection if you want to collapse it now. Robert Currey talk 08:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally there is some kind of template you can put on the top, which says "Resolved". See some of the other topics on that page for examples.

But before you close it I have now put some other questions I would like you to address. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Currey

The article Robert Currey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, poorly referenced

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. William M. Connolley (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rolls eyes. Robert, I have placed a message on the discussion page to say that I don't think the page should be deleted and will be happy to do some work on this myself, if you don't object. If you are OK with this, then please feel free to let me know of any references that might be useful. Regards, Zac Δ talk 12:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Zac. Here is some biographical background information that you might consider. Robert Currey talk 10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a good look over the next couple of days. I notice you have a photo on that page. If you are OK with the WP bio having a photo too, are you able to place one on Wikimedia commons? Zac Δ talk 14:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Zac, thanks. As you suggested, I put a photo onto Wikimedia Commons - see [6] Robert Currey talk 12:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robert - just letting you know that I worked on your biography today. I hope you approve. Everytime I run over it I find another spelling mistake but I think I've got them all now. Sorry, but I didn't include any external links to your website or make any reference to comments drawn from your off-wiki biography. I believe these would be legitimate, but I wanted to ensure that the editor who tagged the page would be completely satisfied that everything written was verifiable by independent sources. Thanks for providing the photo, which I think adds a little more interest to the page. Best regards, Zac Δ talk 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Zac for clearing that up. Everything is correct, except that my place of birth is in fact, Dundee, Scotland and not the Isle of Man. Robert Currey talk 14:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well that's fixed now too. Cheers Zac Δ talk 14:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Astrological research

Robert, The Astrology:Research section is not as informative as it should be. The whole Science section is much too heavy on brute authority, without a sense of engagement or critical thinking. In the Research section, readers do not get any real insight into how quantitative research is done and the scientific discourse that is generated. I suggest a better way to present the research would be to focus on the two most famous studies, Gauquelin and Carlson. These are great examples and undoubtedly have the highest interest for readers. I've written a start on this and I would like you to look at it and make clarifications and suggestions. Please see: User:Ken_McRitchie/Sandbox3. —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

Hi Ken, thanks - this is an excellent summary. It may need to be edited down for the main Astrology page, though I cannot see which sentences could be cut without undermining the balance. It also needs more citations. I trust that you will be posting this to the main astrology page shortly as I have a number of other suggestions. In the meantime, some points should IMO be rectified right away.

1. One of the key advantages of the Carlson test is that it involved up to 116 subjects and up to 28 astrologers. I can add citations for these. Most astrology tests are too small to draw conclusions. I think these numbers should be included in your text.
2. The last line in the 6th para that begins "Following the experiment, Carlson ... ." should be altered to read: "When Carlson's study was published in Nature in 1985, his conclusion was that that natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers was no better than chance." (p.425 Carlson, Nature)

Robert Currey talk 08:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking a Wiki break

Hi Robert, I'll be away for a sojourn in India. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to work with you editing astrology articles. I'll be back in a couple of weeks. Ken McRitchie (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token eaba9347d20b20a7d60db9c9bbb5bdda

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

More specific RfC on astrology

Thank you for your input on the RfC on Astrology. Because I was informed that the original RfC was too vague and general, I've reformulated it with specific concerns. The reformulated RfC can be found here: [[7]] Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Zac. I have replied on your Talk Page. Robert Currey talk 22:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

RS

Hi Robert, have to run right now, but RS stands for WP:RS, reliable sourcing policy. Also, you can do WP:[whatever], in the search box and usually find what people mean- don't use the brackets in the search box. Best. B^e——C_ritical 14:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BeCritical for your clarification. I have seen it before and never thought to WP:RS it. Robert Currey talk 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. NW (Talk) 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)