Talk:Deborah Houlding

message: Let's work on them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: There are other pages needing attention

message: Checking the verifiability of sources. I didn't read the talk page comments prior to this so as not to be influenced, but took the article as it stands currently.
Citation 1 to The Houses: Temples of the Sky, re-published by The Wessex Astrologer Ltd after being self-published by Houlding’s own Nottingham-based Ascella Publications. Assuming that Wessex Astrologer has no direct connection to Houlding - on balance OK.
Citation 2 to The Traditional Astrologer within The Astrology Book – there is an ISBN for The Astrology Book that can be added. The Traditional Astrologer is a defunct publication that Houlding edited, and claimed to have published through her own Ascella Publications (bottom of page), but copies still sold on her personal web site. But the cite does point elsewhere and supports an uncontroversial raw fact – on balance not self-referencing so OK
Citation 3 to Astrology (Parker and Parker) – assuming good faith that Houlding is mentioned on page 296, and that it supports something uncontroversial – so OK
Citation 4 to Sydney Omarr's (Penguin USA) for "one of the UK's top astrologers" – OK
Citation 5 to The World of Internet, no ISBN (ISBN usually the entry level for book notability) but in Google books, and mentions that Houlding set-up the Skyscript site - so on balance OK if comment on website content goes (see below).
Citations 6,7,8,9, and 10 are from Mary Plumb’s California-based Mountain Astrologer.com. All assertions verified but see caveat below about this site.
Citation 11 to www.astrologicalassociation.com 2010 Conference Speakers – OK
My reservation about the article is the heavy over-egging reliance on Mountain Astrologer, while there being no cites to significant independent non-astrological sources. There is a blue link to traditional astrological methods but the text or link doesn’t explain what these methods are – perhaps this needs explaining. There is little point in adding what might be seen as promotional quotes in the text, especially if they are repeated in the refs/footnotes, and are at the other end of links anyway - so I would remove "a range of astrology articles, resources and instructional material" from the first para, and "the bewildering varieties of house division. She believes that Librans have a talent for impartiality and make perfect judges, referees and diplomats" from the second para.
::. Removed. Rewrote lede sentence slightly differently (so we don't have to fuss with what "traditional astrological methods" means. Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. What a lot of people don't realize is that a crisp and to-the-point article and style elevates the importance of the subject; the long-winded, poorly cited, and waffle diminishes it. Less is always more. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree! Thanks for your spot-on suggestions! --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Update - this second site seems to be added into the info box under a different domain name. Acabashi (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're getting at here but please feel free to make the changes yourself; my sense is only one external link is all that's needed, do you agree?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree - fair enough - and I won't change a thing - couldn't be better. I was just curious that a version of Deb's own website lay hidden within the Skyscript site - a bit of a curiosity that's all. Acabashi (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Review (requested) 8 June 2011

message: I notice that the comment “one of the UK's top astrologers” has been tagged by whom?.  It is evident from the text that the comment comes from renowned US astrologer, Sydney Omarr in his book published by Penguin.  Was the tag an oversight of this solid reference or a request that the reference makes the source clearer?  If not, I propose reverting the tag. Robert Currey talk 18:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: . Agreed; thanks for pointing this out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Robert Currey talk 23:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Omarr Citation

message: The article is written as though she were a respected academic rather than as an amateur historian. The "Critical commentary" was the Heilen noting mistakes etc that had she had made. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Please clarify how you think it should read.  Kooky2 (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples: Wording such as "has attracted interest from other fields" implies Astrology is a recognised legitimate field. With the original research which has been added: " her research into the history of astrology has attracted notice and critical interest outside the field of astrology as well as within". No source states that, you have reached that conclusion yourself. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I have reduced the academic tone of the article and there is some critical comment.  Kooky2 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expertise 

message: Why are dubious unverified citations being restored which don't even need to be present for the lede? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added supporting quotes. Kooky2 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You added one quote, not three. Also see my second point (WP:OVERCITE), This information is trivial and the sources are low quality. It's in the lede and doesn't actually need to be cited in this way per WP:LEADCITE. Whatever way you look at it, three sources aren't needed to state something so basic in the lede. This leads me to a suspicion that sources are merely being kept and added to give the appearance that the article is notable (which is pointless anyway as the discloser judges by the AfD arguments and the sources presented at the AfD, not by the article). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Questions of style are less important right now rather than content and we have to give credit to the discloser judges to make a decision based on their expertise. Kooky2 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? No we don't. The closer won't be commenting here. We don't ignore policies so people can stuff the article with poor citations. Justify the content, or remove it. Uninvolved admins close the discussion for their ability to weigh up the arguments. They weigh up our arguments in the discussion based on what we have said, they don't add new arguments. They hold the same weight as anyone else when it comes to matters of content though. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated some of the content that accompanied the links.  Kooky2 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How could you conclude that as a basis of this discussion? You haven't attempted to justify your inclusions in the slightest. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have again deleted the links and content without agreement. Kooky2 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't consider there is a case of WP:OVERCITE and WP:LEADCITE states that "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." Kooky2 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone contended that she is not an astrologer? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Mindful of your comment about WP:OVERCITE I have moved one reference from the lead into the body.  Kooky2 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The very next reference says she is one of the top astrologers, and you think somehow you need a new reference? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring Dubious citations 

message: Please could someone clarify the reasons for OR tag in this article - Which references are considered to be OR and why and how could they be improved? Kooky2 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not revert edits without a reason. Restoring a section because there hasn't been a discussion is not a valid reason for doing so. No citations explicitly support: "her research into the history of astrology has attracted attention from outside the field of astrology as well as within". No reliable source explicitly supports "Her knowledge of the origin and development of traditional astrological principles has led to presentations at institutions". No source explicitly supports "her writings on the development of the Zodiac have also attracted interest from other fields". No source explicitly supports "She has also aroused controversy and criticism through her Skyscript articles". No source explicitly supports "In addition, her articles on many subjects such as the cycles of Venus and the twin Gemini stars have been commented on in astrological journals." You are inferring these things. Doing that is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research Tag

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Deborah Houlding. 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  tag to http://www.aar.org.ro/ro-membri.php?membru=deborah-houlding
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904143823/http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/pages/conference/2010/speakers.php to http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/pages/conference/2010/speakers.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified