Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Astrology/1

Astrology

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Procedure

Extended content

Wound theology: I don't see any advance notice of this GAR on Talk:Astrology? The normal procedure is to state one's concerns on the talk page, and if there's no (satisfactory) response, to proceed to GAR. I suggest this GAR should be withdrawn now, so we can discuss the matter on the talk page first. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the archives; I previously brought up certain issues (the theological viewpoints, in particular) and even flagged it with a disclaimer as being unbalanced. It was ignored and the template was eventually removed because no one else seemed to care. wound theology ◈ 09:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was well done, and I see you've made some helpful additions to the article recently as well. But neither of those things constitute putting a notice on the talk page that you're considering a GAR, in the week before you do so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: The edit in which I added the Template:POV is here and the previous "discussion" is at Talk:Astrology/Archive 36#Theological viewpoints. Note that the edit in which VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) removed the template has an inaccurate summary, stating there has been consensus for "over a year" -- I did explain to her here that a lack of discussion is an example of WP:NOCON rather than the opposite. wound theology ◈ 09:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find "GAR" anywhere in that archive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest: I was just following Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines, which is the first search result for me. That page only says to [c]onsider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors. Unless there is some hard-and-fast policy like the WP:3RR about talk page discussion about a GAR specifically, I think the problems on this page are serious enough to warrant a reassessment. The page is largely the accretion of several slow-burn edit wars and POV-pushing from both sides in the ten years (!) since it was elevated to GA status, and from my own personal experience editing the page -- not many are willing to give the proper historical context needed here. The fact that a cleanup template could stay up for over a year and then be quietly removed for a lack of discussion is evidence enough of that. wound theology ◈ 09:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, GAR it is then. Let's proceed to technical discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Much has been changed and argued about since this page was promoted a decade ago. In general it is unbalanced and skewed -- not in the WP:FRINGE sense but in that it tends to ignore how widespread astrology was in ancient and medieval times, and seems to misrepresent the work of ancient philosophical skeptics (who rejected all philosophical and scientific inquiry.) The "Theological viewpoints" section, likewise, implies that astrology was historically rejected in both Islam and Christianity, despite the fact that the exact opposite is true. wound theology ◈ 08:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a comment about content; reviewing the six GA criteria, the only one near it is Neutrality, but the page is studiously neutral, despite much added-and-reverted partisan editing. Instead, your remarks about "ancient philosophical skeptics (who rejected all philosophical and scientific inquiry.)" and "Theological viewpoints" (Islam and Christianity) are both matters of historical detail, which can be fixed simply by adding a bit more detail in both cases. I suspect you have historical texts to hand which could fix both matters quite easily? I'll be happy to support you in getting such materials into the article, but I see that as normal development, nothing to do with neutrality (basically, just fine adjustment).

As for your remark about "how widespread astrology was in ancient and medieval times", I'd say (looking at the article after a long interval), that it does quite a good job of indicating the topic's importance in those eras, giving substantial weight in a detailed 'History' chapter to this aspect. That does not mean we can't add more detail, and I suggest we do, to satisfy your concerns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is either Neutral nor sufficiently Broad in its coverage. The single largest section in this page is dedicated to the reception of astrology in the hard sciences, which dwarfs the comparatively tiny section on the principles and practice of astrology -- which covers three entire civilizations in less space than it takes to debunk the particular claims of modern horoscopic astrology. Elsewhere, significant weight is given to skeptical opinions in historical contexts, and even those viewpoints are presented in a very skewed manner -- the description of Plotinus as a critic of astrology without discussion of his very complex astrological views is heinous, in my view (see Adamson, "Plotinus on Astrology" in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35 for context on that issue.) Giving even broad coverage to the Theological viewpoints section is, to put it simply, a Herculean task -- it is a massively complex topic spanning centuries and dozens of particular schools and opinions, practically none of which can be given a single "pro" or "contra" summary; exactly why I find the lack of interest in expanding that section particularly telling. wound theology ◈ 10:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't find anything "particularly telling": my view is that our job on Wikipedia in a top-level overview-of-a-major-topic article is to give a very brief summary of many large and complex issues in a small space. I'm happy to help you extend the history, as long as it doesn't overwhelm the article; any further detail would go into subsidiary articles on Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology (substantial articles, which we certainly can't and shouldn't try to duplicate here), etc.

With respect, we are very far from falling foul of either GACR Neutrality or Breadth criteria here: the article gives what many readers will find a surprising amount of detail on ancient matters. However, I'm very happy to accept your steer towards additional materials (possibly by asking you to email me a photocopy). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a brief statement about the ancient skeptics challenging everything: it's a bit of an iffy thing to do in an article as philosophers and others leap gleefully on anything with a "forall" in it, and it's close to being off-topic too, but it may help to answer your first concern (which I really don't see as misrepresentation at all: the article just says "A says x", which does not imply "A does not say y", specially as "y" is outside the article's scope). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence on Plotinus from Adamson, mentioning his interest and two key concerns identified by Adamson. If there are further points on other ancient figures you'd like added, please identify them and I'll add them to the article (unless you feel like doing so yourself). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for keeping

Keep: 1) the article is studiously neutral, covering multiple points of view and giving equal weight to history, principles and practice, theology, science, and culture, and has been edited and debated by many editors; and 2) the article offers detailed and balanced coverage of a very large subject in the space of a single overview article (in "summary style" with "main" links to subsidiary articles). In particular, this one article cannot and must not attempt to cover every detail of everything that the more than 60 astrology articles on Wikipedia cover already: as sketched in the tree diagram below, this article is at the top of a substantial hierarchy of articles, and its job is to give new readers a compact overview of the field: which it does. Accordingly, it is a valid Good Article and should be kept as such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology

History of astrology

Ancient traditions

	Babylonian astrology

	Hellenistic astrology

	Astrology in Hellenistic Egypt

	Hindu astrology

	Astrology in the medieval Islamic world

	.....