Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophiuchus (astrology)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If the article presented views that were not supported in the references (e.g. that Ophiuchus is the 13th sign of the zodiac) then we'd have an issue. The article as I see it does not present these views, and details that this was a proposed sign of the zodiac, but it is not. If there are ways to make this clearer then that can be done through normal editing. Wikipedia contains many articles about minority opinions, though not in the majority, are still valid and recognised opinions covered in reliable sources. There's sufficient coverage in reliable sources in this article to meet the general notability guidelines. I think what's needed here is some solid cleanup and editing, but not deletion. There's no consensus here that deletion is required, or appropriate, hence my closure. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ophiuchus (astrology)

Ophiuchus (astrology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The reason I am proposing this article for deletion is that it is based on misinformation and builds upon the confused (but incorrect) assumption that Ophiuchus, as a constellation which crosses the zodiac, constitutes a zodiac sign. It is easily established as a fact that this is not so, and it is a point made only by those who lack clear understanding of what the zodiac - whether tropical or sidereal - is. This causes no end of further confusion and ill-founded criticism of astrological technique. The article's header "Ophiuchus (astrology)" leads the reader to believe that this is the standard astrological view, but it most definitely is not. The page popularisies the dubious views of a living astrologer, and even having the main Ophiuchus page disambiguate to this, with the comment: "This article is about the constellation. For the astrological sign, see Ophiuchus (astrology)" adds to the confusion and misinformation. I have placed a small but clear and reliable comment on the main Ophiuchus page to clarify the point and can't see that anything else is ncessary. This page takes more away from established knowledge than it contributes, therefore I believe it should be deleted on the grounds that it is not suitable material for an encyclopedic reference.

Further, the discussion page of the entry demonstrates how most editors have abandoned the page as not worthy of attempts of improvement. I had considered helping to clarifying the issues on the page myself, but after reading it, I consider it a no starter for improvement - it needs to clearly express the point that Ophiuchus is a constellation and not recognised astronomically or astrologically as a zodiac sign; and this applies to both the tropical and sidereal approaches. However, all that would do is justify the reason why there shouldn't even be a page to begin with. The page appears to exist as a way to remove unacceptable content from the main Ophiuchus entry. But if it is based on junk, then surely better to simply delete it. The sooner the better in my opinion 11:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I fixed this AfD nom (created by User:Zachariel (talk · contribs)). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The topic seems to have legs and the worst case is that we'd merge into a section like Ophiuchus#Confused association with zodiac signs rather than deleting. Warden (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sob! Can't we astronomers ever get rid of this pseudoscientific stuff. Nay, I say: keep it on arms length away from serious topics! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I prefer not to vote on this because I have been in ongoing discussions with editor Zachariel about his adding astrology in astronomy articles, which he has been discussing with other editors on the WikiProject Astrology, for example here: [1] and here: [2]. I just want to point out that while Zachariel is putting this article up for deletion, he is at the same time adding astrological material to Ophiuchus. See this diff: [3]. That's all I want to say. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment That's not pointing anything out Makesense64 - I mentioned this above. The comment reads in full:

Confused association with zodiac signsBecause of the partial overlap of the constellation Ophiuchus and the Sun's path upon which zodiacal longitude is based, Ophiuchus is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the '13th sign of the zodiac'. This is an innapropriate reference since the zodiac is a division of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, initially originated for calendrical purposes. This makes the notion of a '13th sign' a mathematical impossibility. It is only correct to refer to Ophiuchus as one of the constellations which cross the zodiac; which does not constitute a zodiacal sign, of which all historical records acknowledge only twelve.[ref]

Warden - the above comment is to ensure that the argument - which has no legs - is not indulged on the Ophiuchus page. Your feeling that you don't want it on that page is not a reason to suggest keeping it on this page. I understand that you don't want it littering up the Ophiuchus main page. But if it is litter that astronomers don't want; and astrologers don't want it either, then let's delete it. It is simply factually wrong to leave the impression that Ophiuchus is an astrological sign. Zac Δ talk 14:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I think the Ophiuchus page should stay as it was part of a widespread controversy (arguably a hoax) that got traction in the Press. (Here, I am assuming that it is not addressed elsewhere on WP). However, I believe that if it is to stay it should be re-edited so that the emphasis is on the controversy and the arguments are addressed and clarified. The simple fact (as stated by Zac) that signs ≠ constellations (and technically this includes Sidereal Signs to a lesser extent than Tropical Signs) needs to made very clear as this is a common misconception even among astronomers. The introductory text should clarify that Ophiuchus is not an astrological sign. Robert Currey talk 16:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If it got signifcant coverage in the press then there can be an article about it. It seems to have some good independant sources. Even if only a minority of astrologers uses this sign, it remains Ophiuchus (astrology). WP does not care whether something is true or not, we report on what we find in proper sources. If reliable sources mention astrologers criticising or rejecting this sign, then that goes in a 'Criticism' section in this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would give the public more credit for recognizing this as a hoax and the article should reflect that. I recall that Bruce Schofield PhD explained the astronomy quite well in simple terms in a recent video interview. Someone can contact him for the link. The article badly needs an update because taking this issue seriously is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. The article makes it clear that astrology-wise Ophiuchus was only a suggestion (a proposal). It appears to be fairly well referenced for WP:GNG. It could also be merged in to an article about the man who initially proposed it and if there are good arguments for doing that I'll gladly amend my recommendation to just "merge".  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This sign seems to have an Unicode symbol. How about bringing the section '13th sign astrology' in Walter_Berg here? It would improve this article, and it states that it is used by "a small minority of Western astrologers", removing any possible confusion on that point. That confusion was the main argument brought by AfD nom. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Walter Berg article is currently not well referenced and is a likely candidate for AfD. Integrating the Ophiuchus (astrology) article with the Walter Berg article would probably save the Walter Berg article from AfD. But I always feel that it is in someway cheating when the main subject of an article is not well referenced.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 11:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I tagged Walter Berg for possible original research a couple of days ago. Although he may be more notable in Japan if the article is true. But I think the few sources there refer more to his 13 sign astrology, rather than to Berg himself. A merge seems like a good idea. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - since a separate discussion has evolved on the discussion page of the Zodiac entry (not instigated by me) concerning innapropriate references to Berg's book (which merely capitalised on the mid-1990s publicity and was not responsible for creating it) I have attempted to clarify the situation on the Zodiac entry so that the coverage is verifiable and reliably sourced, and reads:

Due to the constellation boundaries being redefined in 1930 by the International Astronomical Union, the path of the ecliptic now officially passes through thirteen constellations: the twelve traditional 'zodiac constellations' plus Ophiuchus, the bottom part of which interjects between Scorpio and Sagittarius. Ophiuchus is an anciently recognised constellation, catalogued along with many others in Ptolemy's Almagest, but not historically referred to as a zodiac constellation.

The technically inaccurate description of Ophiuchus as a sign of the zodiac dates to the 1970s. This drew prominent media attention on 20th January 1985, following the BBC's opening 'Nine o'clock News' announcement that "an extra sign of the zodiac has been announced by the Royal Astronomical Society". Investigation into the source of the story revealed there had been no such announcement, and that the report had merely sensationalised the 67-year-old 'news' of the IAU's decision to alter the number of designated ecliptic constellations. This was done for the purposes of promoting a forthcoming BBC astronomy programme, presented by the RAS's Public Relation Officer, which touched upon the topic of precession. The false assumption that Ophiuchus constitutes an astrological sign periodically resurfaces in the media, due to public misconception and failure to appreciate that the irregular astronomical demarcation of visible constellations does not relate to the seperate frame of reference provided by the equally spaced twelve-fold longitude division of the ecliptic into zodiacal signs.

My feeling is that some clear explanation of fact must remain on the zodiac page, since it will undoubtedly attract readers seeking clarification on that point, so it needs to give it some coverage. In the light of feedback I now consider the only sensible thing to do is to merge the content of this disputed page into the biography of Berg, who is the only person who benefits from the coverage of the information, or else just delete it altogether as an unnecessary and confusing addition to what is already explained clearly in the places where the topic is relevant (those who consider it relevant to Berg can do what they want with it on his biography page). Let's be clear - we are not proposing a merge into the content of the main Ophiuchus page, and if the page is not to be merged or deleted, but retained to elaborate on the issue, then it needs to change directly substantially, and clearly distinguish between astronomical fact and misrepresentative supposition Zac Δ talk 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I made the article, but I d*rn don't believe in astrology! That I say to stress that Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability, Wikipedia is about what people believe in, 'people' referring to scientists and pseudo-scientists like the astrologers, among others. Therefore the article cannot be deleted with the motivation that it is factually wrong. Personally I think it is rather more like factual nonsense, since it builds on false premisses, but it doesn't matter anyways, since the article reflects a minority opinion among a certain brand of pseudo-sciencers...

I created the article in order to move away the Template:zodiac astrological template () from the astronomical zodiacal constellations – astronomers (amateurs and professionals) in almost unity reject astrology and don't want to associate with it. I created the article to reflect on the fact that a very few astrologers count on 13 zodiacal signs.

The nomination doesn't refer to any specific deletion policies. If the article is going to be deleted, then I estimate Wikipedia:Notability is the most effective one regarding this pseudoscientific article. I won't cry if someone succeeds to remove it, I would rather giggle wickedly. But unless there's a good policy motivation for deleting it, it should stay. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The good policy motivation is that - as you say - it is factual nonsense built on false premises. By not demonstrating that effectively it is unsuitable material for an encyclopedic reference (WP policy on valid reasons for deletion). Above you say: "Can't we astronomers ever get rid of this pseudoscientific stuff. Nay, I say: keep it on arms length away from serious topics!"

Well WP aims aims for credibility too, so the only way to keep the content away from "serious topics" is delete it from WP. It is not necessary to offload the Ophiuchus 'rubbish' to a page dedicated to "factual nonsense" because the pages where it is relevent now include concise and reliable explanations that offer more verifiable and well sourced information than is found on the whole of this page Zac Δ talk 12:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.