Talk:Astrology/Workpage

Core beliefs

The core beliefs of astrology were prevalent in parts of the ancient world and are epitomized in the Hermetic maxim, "as above, so below". Tycho Brahe used a similar phrase to summarize his studies in astrology: suspiciendo despicio, "by looking up I see downward".^[1] Although the principle that events in the heavens are mirrored by those on Earth was once generally held in most traditions of astrology around the world, in the West there has historically been a debate among astrologers over the nature of the mechanism behind astrology.

The connection between celestial mechanics and terrestrial dynamics was explored first by Isaac Newton with his development of a universal theory of gravitation, but claims that the gravitational effects of celestial bodies are what account for astrological generalizations are not substantiated by scientific research.

Most astrological traditions are based on the relative positions and movements of various real or construed celestial bodies and on the construction of implied or calculated celestial patterns as seen at the time and place of the event being studied. These are chiefly the astrological planets, the stars, the lunar nodes, Arabic parts and hypothetical planets. The frame of reference for such apparent positions is defined by the tropical or sidereal zodiac of twelve signs on one hand, and by the local horizon (ascendant-descendant axis) and midheaven-imum coeli axis on the other. The local frame is typically further divided into the twelve astrological houses. Furthermore, the astrological aspects are used to determine the geometric/angular relationship(s) between the various celestial bodies and angles in the horoscope.

Predictive astrology, in the Western tradition, employs two main methods: astrological transits and astrological progressions. In astrological transits the ongoing movements of the planets are interpreted for their significance as they transit through space and the horoscope. In astrological progressions the horoscope is progressed forward in time according to set methods. _{Robert Currey (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)}
There are several techniques of forecasting in Western astrology. Transits, the most popular, are based on the actual motion of planets moving through a sign or house within the horoscope. Another technique, progressions are based on the movements of the planets after birth, symbolically related to a time period or cycle of life. ^[2][3] In Hindu astrology, the focus is on planetary periods to infer the trend, while transits are used to time significant events. Most Western astrologers no longer try to forecast actual events, but focus instead on general trends and developments. By comparison, Hindu astrologers predict both trends and events. Skeptics respond that this practice of western astrologers allows them to avoid making verifiable predictions, and gives them the ability to attach significance to arbitrary and unrelated events, in a way that suits their purpose.^[4]

In the past, astrologers often relied on close observation of celestial objects and the charting of their movements. Modern astrologers use data provided by astronomers which are transformed to a set of astrological tables called ephemerides,^[5] showing the changing zodiacal positions of the heavenly bodies through time.

Traditions

There are many traditions of astrology, some of which share similar features due to the transmission of astrological doctrines between cultures. Other traditions developed in isolation and hold different doctrines, though they too share some features due to drawing on similar astronomical sources.

Current

The main traditions followed by modern astrologers are Hindu astrology (Jyotiṣa), Western astrology, and Chinese astrology.

Hindu and Western astrology share a common Hellenic ancestry as horoscopic systems of astrology, in that both traditions focus on the casting of an astrological chart or horoscope, a representation of celestial entities, for an event based on the position of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the moment of the event. However, Hindu astrology uses the sidereal (fixed) zodiac, linking the signs to their original constellations, while Western astrology uses the tropical (seasonal) zodiac. Because of the precession of the equinoxes, in which the polar axis revolves in a circle every 25,686 years, the twelve zodiacal signs in Western astrology no longer correspond to the same part of the sky as the constellations they were named after. The link between sign and constellation in Western astrology was broken two thousand years ago, whereas in Hindu astrology the constellations remain of paramount importance. Other differences between the two traditions include the use of 27 (or 28) nakshatras or lunar mansions, each 13⅓ degrees wide, which have been used in India since Mauryan times, and the systems of planetary periods known as dashas.

In Chinese astrology, a quite different tradition has evolved. By contrast to Western and Hindu astrology, the twelve signs of the zodiac do not divide the sky, but rather the celestial equator. The Chinese evolved a system in which each sign corresponds to one of twelve "double-hours" that govern the day, and to one of the twelve months. Each sign of the zodiac governs a different year, and combines with a system based on the five elements of Chinese cosmology to give a 12×5 = 60-year cycle. The term Chinese astrology is used here for convenience, but versions of this tradition exist in Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, and other Asian countries. It appears that this is a remnant of a more ancient system of Jupiterian astrology, an astrological system primarily based on the motion of Jupiter, which orbits the Sun every 11.89 years.

In the twentieth century, these traditions came into closer contact, notably with Indian and Chinese astrology having spread in more direct form to the West, while awareness of the modern notions of Western astrology is still fairly limited in Asia, and is not considered useful. Astrology in the Western world has diversified among some in modern times. New movements have appeared that have jettisoned much of more recent traditional astrology to concentrate on different approaches, such as a greater emphasis on midpoints, or a more psychological approach. Some recent Western developments include modern tropical and sidereal horoscopic astrology, including constellational and star or point-based astrology (including aspects to the fundamental planetary dynamics, such as perihelions and aphelions, and nodal points resulting from the inclinations of the planets' revolutionary planes to the Earth's ecliptic plane); heliocentric astrology, cosmobiology; psychological astrology; sun sign astrology; the Hamburg School of Astrology; and Uranian astrology, a subset of the Hamburg School.

Historical

Throughout its long history, astrology has come to prominence in many regions and undergone developments and change. There are many astrological traditions that are historically important, but which have largely fallen out of use. Astrologers still retain an interest in them and regard them as an important resource. Historically significant traditions of astrology include Arab and Persian astrology (Medieval, Near East); Babylonian astrology (Ancient, Near East); Egyptian astrology; Hellenistic astrology (Classical antiquity); Hindu astrology and Mayan astrology.

Esoteric

Many mystic or esoteric traditions have links to astrology. In some cases, such as Kabbalah, this involves participants incorporating elements of astrology into their own traditions. In other cases, many astrologers have incorporated other traditions into their own practice of astrology, and astrology has been incorporated into those traditions. Esoteric traditions include, but are not limited to, alchemy, chiromancy, Kabbalistic astrology, medical astrology, numerology, Rosicrucian or "Rose Cross", and Tarot divination.

Historically, alchemy in the Western World was particularly allied and intertwined with traditional Babylonian-Greek style astrology; in numerous ways they were built to complement each other in the search for occult or hidden knowledge.^[6] Astrology has used the concept of the four classical elements of alchemy from antiquity up until the present day. Traditionally, each of the seven planets in the solar system known to the ancients was associated with, held dominion over, and "ruled" a certain metal.^[7]

Horoscopic astrology

Horoscopic astrology is a system that some claim to have developed in the Mediterranean region and specifically Hellenistic Egypt around the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE.^[8] The tradition deals with two-dimensional diagrams of the heavens, or horoscopes, created for specific moments in time. The diagram is then used to interpret the inherent meaning underlying the alignment of celestial bodies at that moment based on a specific set of rules and guidelines. A horoscope was calculated normally for the moment of an individual's birth, or at the beginning of an enterprise or event, because the alignments of the heavens at that moment were thought to determine the nature of the subject in question. One of the defining characteristics of this form of astrology that makes it distinct from other traditions is the computation of the degree of the Eastern horizon rising against the backdrop of the ecliptic at the specific moment under examination, otherwise known as the ascendant. Horoscopic astrology is the most influential and widespread form of astrology in Africa, India, Europe and the Middle East. Medieval and most modern Western traditions of astrology have Hellenistic origins.

History

Many^[who?] believe that the origins of much of the astrological doctrine and method that would later develop in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East are found among the ancient Babylonians and their system of celestial omens that began to be compiled around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE.^[9] They believe this system of celestial omens later spread, either directly or indirectly through the Babylonians and Assyrians, to other areas such as the Middle East, and Greece, where it merged with pre-existing indigenous forms of astrology.^[10] Thus, Babylonian astrology migrated to Greece, initially as early as the middle of the 4th century BCE, and then around the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE, ^{[citation needed]}after the Alexandrian conquests, this Babylonian astrology was mixed with the Egyptian tradition of decanic astrology to create horoscopic astrology.^{[citation needed]} This new form of astrology, which appears to have originated in Alexandrian Egypt, spread across the ancient world into Europe, the Middle East, and India with varying degrees of influence.^{[citation needed]}

Before the modern era

The differentiation between astronomy and astrology varied from place to place; they were strongly linked in ancient India,^[11] ancient Babylonia and medieval Europe, but separated to an extent in the Hellenistic world. The first semantic distinction between astrology and astronomy was probably given by Isidore of Seville^[12] (see astrology and astronomy).

The pattern of astronomical knowledge gained from astrological endeavors has been historically repeated across numerous cultures, from ancient India through the classical Maya civilization^{[citation needed]} to medieval Europe.^{[clarification needed]} Given this historical contribution, astrology has been called a protoscience along with disciplines such as alchemy.^{[citation needed]}

Astrology was not without criticism before the modern era; it was often challenged by Hellenistic skeptics, church authorities, and medieval Muslim astronomers, such as Al-Farabi (Alpharabius), Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, Avicenna and Averroes. Their reasons for refuting astrology were often due to both scientific (the methods used by astrologers being conjectural rather than empirical) and religious (conflicts with orthodox Islamic scholars) reasons.^[13] Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (1292–1350), in his Miftah Dar al-SaCadah, used empirical arguments in astronomy in order to refute astrology and divination.^[14]

Many thinkers, philosophers and scientists, such as Galen, Paracelsus, Girolamo Cardan, Taqi al-Din, Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Carl Jung and others, practiced or significantly contributed to astrology.^[15][16]

Contemporary changes

Several innovations have occurred in contemporary astrological practice.

Western

During the middle of the 20th century, Alfred Witte and, following him, Reinhold Ebertin pioneered the use of midpoints (see Midpoint Astrology) in horoscopic analysis. ^[17] From the 1930s to the 1980s, astrologers including Dane Rudhyar^[18], Liz Greene^[19][20] and Stephen Arroyo^[21] pioneered the use of astrology for psychological analysis, with some following the lead of psychologists like Carl Jung. In the 1930s, Don Neroman developed and popularized in Europe a form of Locational Astrology under the name of "Astrogeography". A new kind of Locational Astrology began in 1957-58, when Donald Bradley, published a hand-plotted geographic astrology map. In the 1970s, American astrologer Jim Lewis developed and popularized a different approachthis technique under the name of Astro*Carto*Graphy.^[22] Both methods purport to identify varying life conditions through differences in location. The world map displays lines where the Sun, Moon, planets and other celestial points appear to be at the four angles at a given moment in time. By comparing these lines with the horoscope, an astrologer attempts to identify the potential in any location.^[23]_{Robert Currey (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)}

Indian

Indian astrology uses a different zodiac than Western astrology and is a branch of Vedic science.^[24][25] In India, there is a long-established widespread belief in astrology, and it is commonly used for daily life, foremost with regard to marriages, and secondarily with regard to career and electional and karmic astrology.^[26][27] In the 1960s, H.R. Seshadri Iyer, introduced a system including the concepts of yogi and avayogi. It generated interest with research oriented astrologers in the West. From the early 1990s, Western Vedic astrologer and author V.K. Choudhry created and developed the Systems' Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes, a simplified system of Jyotish (predictive astrology)^[28] The system, also known as "SA", helps those who are trying to learn Jyotisha. The late K.S. Krishnamurti developed the Krishnamurti Paddhati system based on the analysis of the stars (nakshatras), by sub-dividing the stars in the ratio of the dasha of the concerned planets. The system is also known as "KP" and "sub theory". In 2001, Indian scientists and politicians debated and critiqued a proposal to use state money to fund research into astrology.^[29] In India, astrology is taught in some universities as a science.^[30][31]

Effects on world culture

Belief in astrology holds firm today in many parts of the world: in one poll, 31% of Americans expressed a belief in astrology and, according to another study, 39% considered it scientific.^[32][33]

Astrology has had an influence on both language and literature. For example, influenza, from medieval Latin influentia meaning influence, was so named because doctors once believed epidemics to be caused by unfavorable planetary and stellar influences.^[34] The word "disaster" comes from the Greek "δυσαστρία","disastria", derived from the negative prefix "δυσ-" "dis-" and "αστήρ" "aster" "star", thus meaning "no-starred" or "badly-starred".^[35] Adjectives "lunatic" (Luna/Moon), "mercurial" (Mercury), "venereal" (Venus), "martial" (Mars), "jovial" (Jupiter/Jove), and "saturnine" (Saturn) are all old words used to describe personal qualities said to resemble or be highly influenced by the astrological characteristics of the planet, some of which are derived from the attributes of the ancient Roman gods they are named after. In literature, many writers, notably Geoffrey Chaucer^[36][37][38] and William Shakespeare,^[39][40] used astrological symbolism to add subtlety and nuance to the description of their characters' motivation(s). More recently, Michael Ward has proposed that C.S. Lewis imbued his Chronicles of Narnia with the characteristics and symbols of the seven heavens. Often, an understanding of astrological symbolism is needed to fully appreciate such literature.

Some modern thinkers, notably Carl Jung,^[41] believe in astrology's descriptive powers regarding the mind without necessarily subscribing to its predictive claims. In education astrology is reflected in the university education of medieval Europe, which was divided into seven distinct areas, each represented by a particular planet and known as the seven liberal arts. ^{[citation needed]}Dante Alighieri speculated that these arts, which grew into the sciences we know today, fitted the same structure as the planets.^{[citation needed]} In music the best known example of astrology's influence is in the orchestral suite called "The Planets" by the British composer Gustav Holst, the framework of which is based upon the astrological symbolism of the planets.^{[42][citation needed]}Robert Currey (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC) RobertCurrey (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology and science

In the Islamic world astrology was rejected during the turn of the 2nd millennium owing to the development of the scientific method and the work of al-Farabi, Alhacen, al-Biruni, Avicenna and Averroes, who made a semantic distinction between astronomy and astrology^[43] and helped to render astrology obsolete for Muslims. Muslim views on astrology have generally remained negative.

By the time of Francis Bacon and the scientific revolution, newly emerging scientific disciplines acquired a method of systematic empirical induction based upon experimental observations.^[44] At this point, astrology and astronomy began to diverge; astronomy became regarded as one of the empirical sciences, while astrology came to be understood as a part of scholastic metaphysics, and was increasingly viewed as an occult science or superstition by natural scientists. For example, Christiaan Huygens wrote in his Cosmotheoros: "And as for the Judicial Astrology, that pretends to foretel what is to come, it is such a ridiculous, and oftentimes mischievous Folly, that I do not think it fit to be so much as named."^[45] This separation accelerated through the 18th and 19th centuries.^[46]

Contemporary scientists, such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, regard astrology as unscientific,^[47][48] and those such as Andrew Fraknoi of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific have labeled it a pseudoscience.^[49] In 1975, the American Humanist Association characterized those who have faith in astrology as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary".^[50] Astronomer Carl Sagan was unwilling to sign the statement, not because he felt astrology was valid, but because he found the statement's tone authoritarian.^[51][52] Sagan stated that he would instead have been willing to sign a statement describing and refuting the principal tenets of astrological belief, which he believed would have been more persuasive and would have produced less controversy than the circulated statement.^[53]

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson asserted that "astrology was discredited 600 years ago with the birth of modern science. 'To teach it as though you are contributing to the fundamental knowledge of an informed electorate is astonishing in this, the 21st century'. Education should be about knowing how to think, 'And part of knowing how to think is knowing how the laws of nature shape the world around us. Without that knowledge, without that capacity to think, you can easily become a victim of people who seek to take advantage of you'".^[54][55]

Although astrology has not been considered a science for some time, it has been the subject of considerable research by astrologers since the beginning of the 20th century. In their study of 20th-century research into natal astrology, Geoffrey Dean, a former astrologer who became critical of the field, and coauthors documented this burgeoning research activity performed primarily within the astrological community.^[56]

Research

Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally defined outcomes.^[57][58] Effect size tests of astrology-based hypotheses conclude that the mean accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than what is expected by chance. It has been suggested that statistical research is often wrongly seen as evidence for astrology due to uncontrolled artifacts.^[59]

Experimental psychologists have suggested that several different psychological phenomena can contribute to perception of astrological accuracy. One, related to confirmation bias, is that people who are given a set of multiple predictions tend to remember more of the accurate predictions ("hits") than the inaccurate ones ("misses"). Consequently, people tend to recall the set of predictions as being more accurate than it actually was. When astrological predictions turn out to correspond with some phenomena but not with others, the recalled integrity of these predictions may stem in part from this phenomenon. A second, called the Forer effect, is that individuals tend to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that are presented to them as tailored specifically for them, but which are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. When predictions use vague language, the appearance that they are specific to the individual may be partially attributable to the Forer effect.^{[citation needed]}

The French psychologist and statistician who devoted his life to the attempt to demonstrate the validity of certain fundamentals of astrology, Michel Gauquelin, wrote that he had found correlations between some planetary positions and certain human traits such as vocations.^[60] Gauquelin's most widely known concept is the Mars effect, which denotes a correlation between the planet Mars occupying certain positions in the sky more often at the birth of eminent sports champions than at the birth of ordinary people. A similar idea is explored by Richard Tarnas in his work Cosmos and Psyche, in which he examines correspondences between planetary alignments and historically significant events and individuals. Since its original publication in 1955, the Mars effect has been the subject of critical studies and skeptical publications which aim to refute it,^[61][62][63] and of studies in fringe journals used to support or expand the original ideas.^[64][65] Gauquelin's research has not received mainstream scientific notice.

Obstacles to research

Astrologers have argued that there are significant obstacles in carrying out scientific research into astrology today, including lack of funding,^[66][67] lack of background in science and statistics by astrologers, and insufficient expertise in astrology by research scientists and skeptics.^[66][67][68] Some astrologers have argued that few practitioners today pursue scientific testing of astrology because they feel that working with clients on a daily basis provides personal validation for their clients.^[67][69]

Another argument made by astrologers is that most studies of astrology do not reflect the nature of astrological practice and that the scientific method does not apply to astrology.^[70][71] Some astrology proponents argue that the prevailing attitudes and motives of many opponents of astrology introduce conscious or unconscious bias in the formulation of hypotheses to be tested, the conduct of the tests, and the reporting of results.^{[57][15][50][68][72]}

Mechanism

Astrologers have not presented consistent explanations of physical mechanisms underlying astrological beliefs,^[73][74] and few modern astrologers believe in a direct causal relationship between heavenly bodies and earthly events.^[67] An editorial published by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific reports no evidence for a scientifically defined mechanism by which celestial objects can influence terrestrial affairs.^[57] Researchers have posited acausal, purely correlative, relationships between astrological observations and events, such as the theory of synchronicity proposed by Carl Jung.^[75] Others have posited a basis in divination.^[76] Others have argued that empirical correlations stand on their own epistemologically, and do not need the support of any theory or mechanism.^[68] To some observers, and most astrologers, these non-mechanistic concepts raise serious questions about the feasibility of validating astrology through scientific testing, and some have gone so far as to reject the applicability of the scientific method to astrology entirely.^[68] Some astrologers, a minority, on the other hand, believe that astrology is amenable to the scientific method, given sufficiently sophisticated analytical methods, and they cite pilot studies to support this view.^[77] Consequently, several astrologers have called for or advocated continuing studies of astrology based on statistical validation.^[78]

I trust this is the right place to propose one section of text with citations.

Western

During the middle of the 20th century, Alfred Witte and, following him, Reinhold Ebertin pioneered the use of midpoints (see Midpoint Astrology) in horoscopic analysis. ^[1] From the 1930s to the 1980s, astrologers including Dane Rudhyar^[2], Liz Greene^[3][4] and Stephen Arroyo^[5] pioneered the use of astrology for psychological analysis, with some following the lead of psychologists like Carl Jung. In the 1930s, Don Neroman developed and popularized in Europe a form of Locational Astrology under the name of "Astrogeography". A new kind of Locational Astrology began in 1957-58, when Donald Bradley, published a hand-plotted geographic astrology map. In the 1970s, American astrologer Jim Lewis developed and popularized a different approachthis technique under the name of Astro*Carto*Graphy.^[6] Both methods purport to identify varying life conditions through differences in location. The world map displays lines where the Sun, Moon, planets and other celestial points appear to be at the four angles at a given moment in time. By comparing these lines with the horoscope, an astrologer attempts to identify the potential in any location.^[7]

reflist - I had problems with my reflist as 7 citations were swamped bylist from above. Please amend if you know how.Robert Currey (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The reflist problem here can only be solved by moving the refs above the reflist template tag. I don't think it's worth it for this purpose; I have looked at the references and they appear to meet all criteria, so I have no issue to raise there. How do you want to proceed. Are you happy for me to include this section when I do the big snip? Do you want to include it yourself prior? I don't care that you are an interested party, only that the references hold up, but the judgement call on your proposed edit is yours to make. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter - Just to make sure everyone can see the references, I am going to include the list manually here:

[1]^ Harding, M & Harvey, C, Working with Astrology, The Psychology of Midpoints, Harmonics and Astro*Carto*Graphy, (Penguin Arkana 1990) (3rd edition pp.8-13) ISBN 1873948034
[2]^ Campion, Nicholas. "Prophecy, Cosmology and the New Age Movement. The Extent and Nature of Contemporary Belief in Astrology."( Bath Spa University College, 2003) via Campion, Nicholas, History of Western Astrology, (Continuum Books, London & New York, 2009) p.248 ISBN 9781847252241
[3]^ Holden, James, A History of Horscopic Astrology: From the Babylonian Period to the Modern Age, (AFA 1996) p.202 ISBN 0-86690-463-8
[4]^ Campion, Nicholas, History of Western Astrology, (Continuum Books, London & New York, 2009) p.258 ISBN 9781847252241 "Jungian Analyst, Liz Greene."
[5]^ Hand, Robert, Horoscope Symbols (Para Research 1981) p.349 ISBN 0-914918-16-8
[6]^ Davis, Martin, From Here to There, An Astrologer’s Guide to Astromapping, (Wessex Astrologer, England, 2008) Ch1. History, p.2 ISBN 9781902405278
[7]^ Lewis, Jim & Irving, Ken, The Psychology of Astro*Carto*Graphy, (Penguin Arkana 1997) ISBN 1357918642 {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: checksum (help)

• Ebertin, Reinhold: Combination of Stellar Influences, (Ebertin-Verlag, Aalen, 1972) ISBN 086690087X
• Greene, Liz. Relating: An Astrological Guide to Living with Others on a Small Planet. (Samuel Weiser, Inc. York Beach, ME, 1977.) ISBN 0-87728-418-0.
• Greene, Liz & Sasportas, H.: The Development of the Personality. (Samuel Weiser, Inc. York Beach, ME, 1987) ISBN 0-87728-673-6;
• Arroyo, Stephen: Astrology, Karma & Transformation: The Inner Dimensions of the Birth Chart, (CRCS Publications, Reno, NV 1978) ISBN 0-916360-04-0
• Lewis, J & Irving, K.: The Psychology of Astro*Carto*Graphy, (Penguin Arkana, 1997) ISBN 1357918642 {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: checksum (help)

Robert Currey (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

________________________________

I have the following thoughts:

• Is it helpful to include a snippet of text in support of each citation if it is available and relevant?

More info is better than not, but the hazard is that someone (including, maybe, me) may question whether an explanatory note is an extra assertion, or interpretation. Again, that's a judgement call you need to make, in anticipation that snippets will be scrutinised by critical eyes. All I can say is that I will defend anything that is adequately referenced, and move to strike any assertion that is not. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I contributed to From Here to There, An Astrologer’s Guide to Astromapping as it is an anthology. However, Davis is probably the only quote, (in which I was not involved) and I have no financial interest in the publication.

I personally don't see that as a problem. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Should I include the author's own book titles for further reading if they are key?

Robert Currey (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally see no harm in listing publications for further reading, and I personally would not object to you listing your own publications for further reading. Nor would I object to you citing yourself from a published work so long as the citation was not an elaboration, just a summary or literal quote of what has already been published elsewhere. My interpretation of the Wikipedia policy is that any assertion must be referenced back to a reputable source. I don't intend to quibble about degrees of 'reputability', the ISBN number being enough to convince me that an interested reader could find the work if motivated to do so, but I cannot anticipate whether another editor will find grounds for objection. In the event of an irreconcilable dispute I will vote on rationality of propositions put, not allegiance to one or another view.

I hope that explains my thinking. Let me add that I have no special status here other than being a clean-skin in relation to recent spats. My activities on this page are motivated to get this article back on track towards being exemplary as an encyclopaedia entry, regardless of personal views. On that note allow me to thank you for your time and effort in contributing. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful feedback, Peter S. Some thoughts here:

• It is not necessary to cite myself at this stage though this might possibly become necessary in the Science section. As you may know I have been warned by an administrator that as an astrologer I have a COI and this may result in me being banned from editing. So I don't want to risk inviting criticism on this basis. (It is hard to imagine how this page could be edited without a few experienced astrologers and this might account for its poor current state. Astrology is a much more complex field than it first appears.)
• All these titles are from my own library. They are well known books and published by independent publishers. The problem in the future is that most authors writing about astrology nowadays prefer to self-publish or publish as e-books and specialist books are no longer viable for most publishers.
• I checked the ISBNs though the ISBN for Psychology of Astro*Carto*Graphy seems like a misprint as it includes the number 10 and my copy of Combination of Stellar Influences (COSI) published by the AFA has no ISBN though I found a German version cited from another Wikipedia entry. It is the classic in this field. I am only going into detail here in case getting the ISBN correct is important.
• You write "How do you want to proceed. Are you happy for me to include this section when I do the big snip? Do you want to include it yourself prior?" It depends on what is practical, I would like to have a record of successful edits and I would also like to have interested editors agreeable or at least aware of proposed changes so objections can be raised before they go up (or not). So I will be guided by you on this.

Robert Currey (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

[to astrologer] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.213.194 (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You may not know about the sense of frustration I felt after having spent some 18 hours over the past three days looking through the entire history of the edits and discussion on these pages during the past three years. Let me re-state here that I am aware of the history of the controversies and arguments in far more painful detail than I care for. Let me also say that nothing I say to you should be misconstrued as challenging or disagreeing with any administrator involved in the astrology debates. If I choose to disagree with anyone I will do so directly and quite plainly; I have never shied away from challenging and admin when I thought I had rational cause to do so.

I am also impartial about astrology insofar as I don't give a damn whether it's science, pseudoscience, claptrap or the word of God. What I do give a damn about is that Wikipedia has some basic ground rules I happen to regard as more sensible than any challenges to them I have yet seen, and I have taken my position here on the basis that not sticking to those rules will kill this article, subvert Wikipedia's mission, and set the precedent that anyone with enough rent-a-crowd can publish anything they want under the Wikipedia aegis.

One more point about my position: the kind of tendentious, vexatous, never ending bullshit arguments about the nature of truth, the definition of science, and the category of astrology that made up the bulk of the comments in these pages was completely futile. We may discuss the metaphysics, ethics, or philosophy of opinion about this topic, but never with the aim or consequence of preventing or subverting valid edits, or intimidating editors less willing to face down irrationality and aggression than I am. The kind of infantile bile spewed up by Aquirata, for example, on the administrator noticeboard convinces me of only one thing: this person is an irrational menace to the Wikipedia project, to other editors and to his/her own cause. Something else it makes me do is dig my heels in to defend basic Wikipedia principles against sophists. On the other hand, I've initiated a dialogue with another editor who ran afoul of admins in which I encouraged that person not to give up on Wikipedia, and in which I forecast that this editor and I might yet cooperate for our own ends to contribute good work to the Wikipedia project in other areas. In other words, I may oppose or support specific actions and arguments, but not necessarily the people who make them.

So, Robert, in light of this subjectivity, and without any hostility about, or pre-judgement of what is yet to be, I offer the following comments on your own observations above -

1. If you place any proposed edits, with references, on the talk page for comment prior to making the edits, you minimise the chance of taking anyone by surprise or having your intentions misinterpreted. Hence also my lengthy cut and paste above to demonstrate with strikethroughs exactly what my intentions are. On that same point, if you discuss proposed redactions prior to making them, there is less chance that you will run afoul of an admin or be misunderstood.
2. I don't much care for the argument that you must be a nuclear physicist to write about or understand nuclear physics; that logic would demand that all who write about death need to be dead first, etc. What I care about is that anyone, whether expert, experienced, professional or complete novice, employs rationality and credible sources. No matter how often it is said, there appears to be confusion about how serious Wikipedia is when its admins and custodians state unequivocally that Wikipedia doesn't care about truth or opinion, only about credible sources. In other words, Wikipedia repeats what has been said elsewhere. It does not publish what its editors think it ought to say.
3. Self-publication and e-books are indeed a problem for anyone who wants to cite them because they will almost certainly be challenged as less than credible references, given the ease with which anyone can publish anything that way. I can confidently predict that one of the most prominent challenges will be along the lines that anything which attracts no mainstream media coverage or mention in other publications is by that very fact less than notable, and therefore ineligible to be mentioned in Wikipedia at all. If that's a problem for astrologers, it's one they need to solve for themselves. It's unlikely exemptions to this rule will be made for anyone, particularly because if that were a possibility I would be the first one citing a whole slew of e-books about the pressing need to recognise me as an incredibly talented, handsome and charming man who should be adored by gorgeous women and never have to work another day in his life.
4. I haven't yet done a thorough reference check, but I can predict that when I or someone else does, any work cited that cannot be located will be challenged, along with the statements it underpins. It is in your interest to make your reference as complete as possible, and it isn't incumbent on a challenger to go to great lengths to verify the existence of the reference.
5. My recommendation to you about the edit is that you wait until 29 March, at which time I will undertake my deletes, insert your edit (unless challenged or debated prior to that date), and then ask for your verification, on this page, that I have not misrepresented your edit. I can't see that you can be more circumspect since your proposal is in plain sight above and open for anyone to comment on, challenge or agree with. If that has not occurred by 29 March you have every right to argue that you acted entirely in good faith, and that the evil bastard Peter Strempel even said so. That, of course, does not mean you will never be challenged on the contents of that wording, but it should avoid any nasty admin surprises. Don't forget, I speak only for myself, not for Wikipedia or its administrators.

I'm sorry that this is a long-winded response to your thoughts, but I want to be absolutely clear about where I'm coming from when I make comments that might otherwise be interpreted as partisan, biased, hostile, amenable, weak or jejune.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter, again, thank you for the advice. I have taken the liberty of adding a citation (see Holst the Planets), where there is no significant text change directly onto your master copy. I have signed the change and marked it in red. Is this acceptable as I believe it will help everyone to identify text which requires citation? Or would you prefer it in the discussion first? Robert Currey (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely as it may seem right now, I am not your invigilator. I welcome your sincere attempts to improve the article. The minute a detractor tries to have a go at you for that I will be there at your side defending you. The minute you stop being an encyclopaedist rather than an adherent to some particular point of view, I will be there as a friend to tell you so. In the meantime, I think you're 'grown-up' enough in the WP sense to know what you're doing.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to elaborate on Mr Currey's proposed contribution that some astrologers followed Carl Jung's lead by offering a referenced explanation of what that lead was?

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter, thank you - Jung's contribution is important and should be clarified. I have set out the original for comparison. If there is no objection in the next few days, I propose replacing the new version with full citations on the main Astrology page.

Western

Early in the 20th century, Carl Jung, the founder of analytical psychology, developed sophisticated theories concerning astrology.^[8] These included concepts such as archetypes, the collective unconscious^[9] and with the collaboration of pioneer theoretical physicist (and Nobel laureate), Wolfgang Pauli, synchronicity.^[10] Astrologers like Dane Rudhyar^[11] pursued a similar path to Jung and others such as Liz Greene^[12][13] and Stephen Arroyo^[14] were influenced by Jung leading to the development of psychological astrology.^[15]

During the middle of the 20th century, Alfred Witte and, following him, Reinhold Ebertin pioneered the use of midpoints (see Midpoint Astrology) in horoscopic analysis.^[16] A new kind of Locational Astrology began in 1957-58, when Donald Bradley, published a hand-plotted geographic astrology map. In the 1970s, American astrologer Jim Lewis developed and popularized this technique under the name of Astro*Carto*Graphy.^[17] The world map displays lines where the Sun, Moon, planets and other celestial points appear to be on any of the Four Angles (Rising, Setting, MC and IC) at a given moment in time. By comparing these lines with the horoscope, an astrologer attempts to identify the potential in any location.^[18]

[1]^ Jung, Carl G. Letters 1906-1950, ed. Gerhard Adler, et al.(Princeton University Press: Bollingen, 1992), Letter from Jung to Freud, 12 June 1911. ISBN 9780691098951 “I made horoscopic calculations in order to find a clue to the core of psychological truth.”
[2]^ Campion, Nicholas, A History of Western Astrology, Vol.II (Continuum, London 2009) p.251-256 ISBN 1441181296 “At the same time, in Switzerland, the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) was developing sophisticated theories concerning astrology…”
[3]^ Gieser, Suzanne. The Innermost Kernel, Depth Psychology and Quantum Physics. Wolfgang Pauli’s Dialogue with C.G.Jung, (Springer, Berlin, 2005) p.21 ISBN 3-540-20856-9

[4]^ Campion, Nicholas. "Prophecy, Cosmology and the New Age Movement. The Extent and Nature of Contemporary Belief in Astrology."( Bath Spa University College, 2003) via Campion, Nicholas, History of Western Astrology, (Continuum Books, London & New York, 2009) p.248 p.256 ISBN 9781847252241

[5]^ Holden, James, A History of Horoscopic Astrology: From the Babylonian Period to the Modern Age, (AFA 1996) p.202 ISBN 0-86690-463-8

[6]^ Campion, Nicholas, History of Western Astrology, (Continuum Books, London & New York, 2009) p.258 ISBN 9781847252241 "Jungian Analyst, Liz Greene."

[7]^ Hand, Robert, Horoscope Symbols (Para Research 1981) p.349 ISBN 0-914918-16-8

[8]^ Hyde, Maggie. Jung and Astrology. (Aquarian/Harper Collins, 1992) p.105 ISBN 185538115X http://www.skyscript.co.uk/synchronicity.html

[9]^ Harding, M & Harvey, C, Working with Astrology, The Psychology of Midpoints, Harmonics and Astro*Carto*Graphy, (Penguin Arkana 1990) (3rd edition pp.8-13) ISBN 1873948034

[10]^ Davis, Martin, From Here to There, An Astrologer’s Guide to Astromapping, (Wessex Astrologer, England, 2008) Ch1. History, p.2 ISBN 9781902405278

[11]^ Lewis, Jim & Irving, Ken, The Psychology of Astro*Carto*Graphy, (Penguin Arkana 1997) ISBN 1357918642 {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: checksum (help)

Robert Currey (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Currey, that's fascinating stuff. Apart from the synchronicity proposition, I had been unaware of Jung's work in psychoastrology. One small point: not being an astrologer I get the feeling I'm missing the meaning of describing 'the four angles at a given moment in time' and what it means when you say 'identify the potential in any location'. What four angles, and why are they significant? What is potential in this context?

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - the Four Angles is an astrological term and needs explanation. Alternative terms such as the primary angles or the cardinal points are possible, but not as close to astrological terminology. Cardinal Points is confusing as the term is synonymous with the Cardinal Directions (N,E,S & West). Rather than weight the already heavy article with a full description of the four angles I have added the shorthand terms (Rising, Setting, MC and IC) that an astrology student will know and have linked all the terms to the full WP definitions. 87.254.92.179 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC) <- sorry that = Robert Currey (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The edits discussed on this work page are now made to the main article and the discussion on this page is closed.

I am indebted to Robert Currey for his uncontroversial collaboration with the intent to remove unreferenced opinion and ask him to be particularly careful in checking that the major edit I have made reflect his proposed and uncontested changes accurately since I incorporated them with my changes.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)