Talk:History of astrology

Major overhaul and snipped text

I've given the article a substantial overhaul. There were two sections in the article that were unreferenced and I'm not sure they add anything of value as separate sections. I'm placing the text here for review and so some of the points can be returned to the other sections with references to support the comments.

Noted predictions

See also: Mundane astrology, Horary astrology, and Electional astrology

A favourite topic of astrologers is the end of the world. As early as 1186 the Earth had escaped one threatened cataclysm of the astrologers. This did not prevent Stöffler from predicting a universal deluge for the year 1524 – a year, as it turned out, distinguished for drought. His aspect of the heavens told him that in that year three planets would meet in the aqueous sign of Pisces. President Aurial, at Toulouse, built himself a Noah's ark – a curious realization, in fact, of Chaucer's merry invention in the Miller's Tale.

The most famous predictions about European and world affairs were made by the French astrologer Nostradamus (1503–66). (Derek and Julia Parker, Ibid, p201, 1990). Nostradamus became famous after the publication in 1555 of his work Centuries, which was a series of prophecies in cryptic verse. So obscure are the predictions that they have been interpreted as relating to a great variety of events since, including the French and English Revolutions, and the Second World War. In 1556 Nostradamus was summoned to the French court by Catherine de' Medici and commissioned to draw up the horoscope of the royal children. Although Nostradamus later fell out of favour with many in the court and was accused of witchcraft, Catherine continued to support him and patronized him until his death.

Historical figures

Throughout history astrologers have made their mark, including such figures as Ptolemy, Albumasur, Tsou Yen and Nostradamus.

Proponents

The influence of the Medici made astrologers popular in France.

Richelieu, on whose council was Jacques Gaffarel (1601–81), a noted astrologer and Kabbalist, did not despise astrology as an engine of government.

At the birth of Louis XIV a certain Morin de Villefranche was placed behind a curtain to cast the nativity of the future autocrat. A generation back the astrologer would not have been hidden behind a curtain, but would have taken precedence over the doctor. La Bruyère did not dispute this, "for there are perplexing facts affirmed by grave men who were eye-witnesses."

In England William Lilly and Robert Fludd were influential. The latter gives elaborate rules for the detection of a thief, and tells us that he has had personal experience of their efficacy. "If the lord of the sixth house is found in the second house, or in company with the lord of the second house, the thief is one of the family. If Mercury is in the sign of the Scorpion he will be bald, &c."

Francis Bacon abuses the astrologers of his day no less than the alchemists, but he does so because he envisions a reformed astrology and a reformed alchemy.

Sir Thomas Browne, while he denied the capacity of the astrologers of his day, did not dispute the reality of the science. The idea of the souls of men passing at death to the stars, the blessedness of their particular sphere being assigned them according to their deserts (the metempsychosis of J. Reynaud), may be regarded as a survival of religious astrology, which, even as late as Descartes's day, assigned to the angels the task of moving the planets and the stars.

Joseph de Maistre believed in comets as messengers of divine justice, and in animated planets, and declared that divination by astrology is not an absolutely chimerical science.

Kepler was cautious in his opinion; he spoke of astronomy as the wise mother, and astrology as the foolish daughter, but he added that the existence of the daughter was necessary to the life of the mother. He may have meant by this that the "foolish" work of astrology paid for the serious work of astronomy — as, at the time, the main motivation to fund advancements in astronomy was the desire for better, more accurate astrological predictions.

Opponents

Some distinguished men who ran counter to their age in denying stellar influences are Panaetius, Augustine, Martianus Capella (the precursor of Copernicus), Cicero, Favorinus, Sextus Empiricus, Juvenal, and in a later age Savonarola and Pico della Mirandola, and La Fontaine, a contemporary of the neutral La Bruyère.

Edit by Other Choices

Other choices is attempting to insert text which deigns to give astrology the appearance of respectability. The source being used is not an academic publication, nor by an academic. The text also includes plagiarism. The publisher, Simon & Schuster, publish amongst other things new age material, self help books and spiritual material, stuff published under them is not automatically reliable for these claims and it also makes claims that are demonstrably false (e.g Kepler College was never accredited), nor do any of these mainstream universities teach astrology (History of astrology != teaching Astrology). The text also makes an implication that the most reliable sources disagree with, as such its inclusion is WP:UNDUE, and violates WP:FRINGE, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism- Text copied and pasted highlighted
In recent years, astrology has been making a resurgence in western countries. For the first time since the Renaissance, astrology is beginning to be taught at the university level in western countries, including England, France, Russia, Germany, and the United States. It is estimated that there are around 15,000 full-time and over 200,000 part-time astrologers in the United States.

IRWolfie just broke WP:3RR. Perhaps there are extraordinary circumstances that justify such an action. Is this one of them?

The text I introduced closely follows a reliable source. IRWolfie's statement that the publisher, Simon & Schuster, "is not automatically reliable for these claims" doesn't bother to mention what claims he's talking about. That's pretty sloppy for somebody who just broke WP:3RR. The author, Benson Bobrick, is a mainstream author on historical subjects. A google search reveals that he got a Ph.D from Columbia University. Whether or not the universities that Bobrick listed "teach" astrology is perhaps a question of semantics. What are the names of the courses in question? If a university offers a course in the history of astrological thought (for example), then perhaps "teach astrology" should be modified to read "teach astrology-related subjects." For pseudoscience, is it acceptable for wikipedia editors to minutely examine the content of a mainstream reliable source?

And regarding the really obnoxious accusation of plagiarism, it's not plagiarism if the source is cited, and I cited Bobrick twice!--Other Choices (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:PLAGFORM: "Forms of plagiarism ... Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text.". Secondly having a PhD does not mean what one writes outside of academia is inherently reliable, and this narrative book is written outside of academia, was not published by an academic publisher, and Bodrick is not an academic or established expert on the history of astrology. Teaching astrology and teaching the history of astrology are vastly different, and it is not a matter of semantics, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For universities teaching astrology in the U.S., the source (p7) only names Kepler College, an unaccredited institution. This cannot possibly amount to a "resurgence" of astrology, at least in the U.S. Vzaak (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that "resurgence" seems a little too enthusiastic. There are a handful of astrology classes at some institutions, but that's not really news. bobrayner (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@ IRWolfie, from the same section at WP:PLAGFORM: "Make sure the material being copied or closely paraphrased is not too long if the work is copyrighted. A few sentences would rarely be problematic." My close paraphrase of Bobrick amounted to exactly three sentences, clearly cited.

@Bobrayner, it would be easy to change "resurgence" to something like "renewed interest." I agree that it's not really news that there are a handful of astrology classes at some institutions. I found a mainstream reliable source that supports this fact, and another editor seeks to block inclusion of this from the article.--Other Choices (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As IRWolfie- pointed out, see WP:UNDUE, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". It is a tiny minority indeed that thinks a single unaccredited institution in the U.S. offering an astrology course amounts to "renewed interest" in astrology. Hard to get tinier than that. Your campaign here is forlorn, don't waste time with it. Vzaak (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To quote from page 7 of Bobrick: "In England, courses in the subject are now offered at Brasenose College, Oxford; Bath Spa University College; the University of Southampton; and the University of Kent. It can also be studied at Cardiff University in Wales, the Bibliotheca Astrologica in France, the University of Zaragoza in Spain, Dogus University in Turkey, Benares Hindu University in northern India, and at Kepler College in the United States, among other schools."--Other Choices (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am able to click on the link that I supplied. You are still no closer to convincing others to that an exception should be made to WP:UNDUE. If your problem is with WP:UNDUE itself, this talk page is not the place to address it. Vzaak (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, your condescending tone borders on rudeness. Please lighten up. I think that your citation of WP:UNDUE is irrelevant to the issue at hand here. If you could please quote the part of WP:UNDUE that you think is relevant, that would help. In this case, it's not about the views of a tiny minority. Bobrick is a mainstream reliable source for the EXISTENCE of astrology study at a handful of universities -- for the first time since the Renaissance, which is a significant development in the history of astrology. If other reliable sources deny the existence of astrology courses at the above-listed schools, then questions of the relative weight of sources come into consideration.--Other Choices (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So you are no longer arguing for "resurgence" or "renewed interest"? Now it's just "existence"? Vzaak (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The word "resurgence" was used by the mainstream reliable source, so the use of that word in the article seems appropriate on that ground alone. Another editor questioned the use of the word, so I indicated that it wouldn't be difficult to find other terminology, such as "renewed interest." I was showing flexibility and willingness to cooperate with other editors; I was suggesting, not arguing. I used the word "existence" in a different, but related context -- the existence of the study of astrology at institutions of higher learning (after an absence of 300 years or so) is documented in a mainstream reliable source (Bobrick), and I tried to add that to the article. Do you have a problem with that?

--Other Choices (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the number of accredited, respected universities that are offering astrology "for real", as in teaching it as a viable method of divination -- not history of astrology, not sociology of astrology, not psychology of astrology, etc --, is approximately zero. I don't believe there is anything resembling a "resurgence" in astrology. I also don't believe, as the book states, that astrology is "knocking again at the doors of academe", a claim that I frankly find absurd. This looks like a fringe view held by an extreme minority, possibly one person. It should be omitted per WP:UNDUE. Vzaak (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your "I don't believe" statements make me think of WP:TRUTH. Perhaps worth a re-read. My understanding is that as wikipedia editors we should strive to follow the reliable sources, no matter what our personal beliefs. That is what I attempted to do with my edit. If you know of any mainstream reliable sources that contradict Bobrick, the please by all means bring them to the discussion and to the article. But your judgment about whether Bobrick represents an extreme minority fringe view appears, so far at least, to be both WP:OR and WP:POV.

Here is the entire paragraph from Bobrick, page 7: "Astrology in modern times has undergone a remarkable resurgence, and is now (as Carl Jung predicted it would) knocking again at the doors of academe. Astrologers are attempting to verify traditional doctrine by scientific methods and in general to meet the demand of Johannes Kepler (one of its true believers) that they 'separate the gems from the slag.' In a number of countries, including England, France, Russia, Germany, and the United States, astrology is once again being taught at the university level, for the first time since the Renaissance. In England, courses in the subject are now offered at Brasenose College, Oxford; Bath Spa University College; the University of Southampton; and the University of Kent. It can also be studied at Cardiff University in Wales, the Bibliotheca Astrologica in France, the University of Zaragoza in Spain, Dogus University in Turkey, Benares Hindu University in northern India, and at Kepler College in the United States, among other schools. Scholarly journals such as Culture and Cosmos (A Journal of the History of Astrology and Cultural Astronomy), the Dublin Astrologer (The Journal of the Dublin Astrological Centre), and Apollon (The Journal of Psychological Astrology), have begun to establish themselves, while the prestigious Warburg Institute in London recently created a "Sophia Fellowship" for astrological research."

--Other Choices (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous; astrology isn't "knocking again at the doors of academe". The view of the scientific community contradicts Dobrick. WP is not netural when it comes to science; it sides with mainstream science. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE serve to exclude such pseudoscientific views. Consider my "I don't believe" as being short for "I don't believe there is a chance in hell that WP policies would allow the statement". Vzaak (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your statement about "the view of the scientific community" appears to be nothing but bluster. This isn't about science vs. astrology -- you might want to go over to the Astrology article for that one. This article is an article about history. You haven't cited a single reliable source to back up your vague statement that "the view of the scientific community contradicts Dobrick." In what regard? Please clarify, and I'd appreciate a citation please (from mainstream reliable sources, of course), and not just a sweeping dismissive generalization.--Other Choices (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Other Choices, Vzaak was quite specific and has indicated why the material is undue and unreliable at a basic level, I suggest you re-read what has been written, and then re-read WP:FRINGE. Secondly, copying three sentences is plagiarism. As I said at FTN, I doubt the history of astrology ever disappeared from being researched, and that list does not distinguish astrology groups from universities. I just checked one of the fellowships in the mainstream universities, and as I thought [1], the Sophia fellowship is for looking at the history of astrology. It's this conflation in the source with studying the history of astrology == resurgence of astrology that is utterly undue and clearly unreliable from a basic fact checking point of view, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I did not "copy three sentences." Please stop harassing me.

Regarding the rest of your comment, your criticism of Bobrick's "conflation" is actually reasonable cause to stay away from this source on this topic, in my opinion.--Other Choices (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

-Other Choices (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is about history of belief in astrology. The book indeed brings in science vs. astrology by suggesting that astrology is gaining acceptance in acedeme "for real" (not history of astrology, not psychology of astrology, etc.). The scientific community is unequivocal in stating that astrology is in no way a respectable scientific discipline. The apparently serious claim of "knocking again at the doors of academe" is excluded via WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Again, this is not a ruling on WP:TRUTH but a consequence of WP not being unbiased when it comes to science.

Add to this IRWolfie-'s point about the author's confusion between history of astrology and astrology "for real". From your last comment it looks like you already agree: this source is ruled out, right? Vzaak (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving on

I think it may be worth explaining how astrology continues to capture the imagination of the uneducated, the superstitious, the willfully ignorant, and certain religions. However, it is certainly not capturing the imagination of serious academics in anything but a meta way. Academics do study how astrology continues to be promulgated as a cultural idea, but nobody takes its particular claims seriously any more than one would take the claims of any other pseudoscience seriously. In fact, academia has become somewhat more hostile even to using astrology as a starting point for investigation as critiques of Freud and Jung have become more the norm in psychology departments, for example. There are plenty of sources to be had that can expand on this point. jps (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Move over

To start with, Freud is a nutter with a sexual preoccupation; his student Jung far excelled the dubiously-titled "father of psychology" with superior insight and much broader understanding of the human psyche. Indeed, Freud wrongly supposed that folk were either mad or insane, yet Jung inferred that everyone is a spiritual being, ever-evolving, and with varying degrees of sanity/insanity - which is much closer to the truth.

But more to the point: astrology is not a science. It is a craft, an art, an esoteric attempt at correlating noumena as opposed to phenomena and therefore cannot be labelled as a "pseudoscience" as it never claims to be scientific. This is labelling just like racism. Sure, most daily paper horoscopes are hogwash written to apply to any given twelfth of the population. But if you have ever had the fortune (or the misfortune as the case may be) to look into your progressed chart, especially the current moon phase, you will clearly see (given that you have your correct exact birthtime) a very accurate description of what stage of life you are going through.

I absolutely adhere to and uphold the arguments that transit predictions and star sign columns are largely (apart from the brilliant, recently deceased Jonathon Cainer) a load of gobbledygook and should be ignored. The notion of being able to predict what will happen to a particular individual on a certain day is nonsense because of Free Will. However, the direction that our lives take and how we plan the cyclic unfolding becomes very obvious when we consider the day-for-a-year progressed chart (a biblical concept to boot) especially in relation to the Moon.

You only have to delve into it to see the correlation. Failure to do so due to scepticism, cynicism or negativity only reinforces the negativity of any narrow point of view. If you don't look, you won't discover anything.

Seek and ye shall find 49.199.116.204 (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #72: "ISBN-10 with wrong checksum", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Houlding, Deborah, 2010. Essays on the history of western astrology. Nottingham: STA. ISBN 1-899503-55-9.

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

India section

I note User:Isambard_Kingdom's addition of an 'unsourced' tag today. For the record, I almost removed the IP edit wholesale for that reason earlier, plus bad spelling, punctuation and unintelligible language. Just sayin. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)  Done I removed it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of astrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501084408/http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005abd_s1.pdf to http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005abd_s1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A source for the history of astrology in the 20th century

The "History of Astrology" article currently contains nothing about the recent history of astrology. There was recently an article in the March 2021 issue of "Career Astrologer" magazine, published by the Organization of Professional Astrologers, which gives an overview of the history of astrology in the 20th century. This article, "How Astrology's Philosophy and Public Image have Evolved since 1890," by Philip Graves, is on pages 14-21 here: https://www.opaastrology.org/2021MarchEquinoxPUBLIC.pdf For the purpose of the "History of Astrology" article, is there any objection to considering Philip Graves's article a reliable source? Other Choices (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)