There are plenty of secondary sources that confirm that astrologers identify Gemini with the classical element Air; the dozens of textbooks that teach the elements of astrology, for instance. The problem only arises when all astrological texts are treated as primary sources, and astrology is not allowed to speak for itself. This problem does not arise in other fields, where textbooks and instruction manuals are routinely cited.
The actual point is that, just like the fact that Gemini is an Air sign, the various platitudes sun sign astrologers use to describe Geminis ("talkative, curious, two-sided", ruled by Mercury, therefore "mercurial") are also subject to fairly broad agreement among the many manuals published by mainstream publishers of the subject. This information also belongs in the article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!04:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you say that the existence of academic texts (I wouldn't regard a "For dummies" book as an academic text but that's besides the point) which mentions astrology falsifies "the 'in universe' hypothesis' ". While it's good that you agree with falsifiability, I fail to see the connection. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a text from an academic publisher. (FWIW, I think they also own Cliff's Notes now. :) The point is fairly simple. Astrologers in the Western tradition, which is apparently taught by the For Dummies book (never read that one), and the one I do own (Derek and Julia Parker's Compleat Astrologer) agree as to the basics of the astrology they teach. These include the stereotypical traits assigned to the sun signs. Therefore these tenets of astrology are not fictional or improvised. They are, instead, traditional, and can be verified from reliable sources in the field like manuals of astrology. They are part of our world, not merely in a fictional world in which astrology is true. And in just about any other fields a popular manual is not only a reliable source, but the sort of thing that represents the novice level we want. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!03:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the "in-universe" argument, it's not saying that anything describing the underpinnings is unreliable, but that sources which are published by fringe publishers aren't generally reliable and have very little due weight attached to them. The For Dummies book is probably fine for astrological aspects if you want to use it as a ref; reliability is dependent on what you do with it. I haven't checked the book though, if it has disclaimers about this being the authors particular system, then obviously it's not suitable to be used. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the "in universe" argument doesn't actually mean "in universe". The books I've mentioned are published by Bantam (a division of Random House) and Wiley as noted above. These publishers at minimum are not exclusively devoted to the promotion of astrology or the occult. For books published by publishers devoted particularly to the occult, at least some of them make some nod to the claims of scholarship, citing references or at least bibliographies. Yes, it's going to be mostly occultists who are interested in annotated editions of occult texts. If we need contemporaries interpreting them for the present, here they are. I just don't think that astrology or occult topics need to be burdened with any special sourcing rules, is all. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!16:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
