Editorial transparency
Source Library and Editorial Method
Different claims need different evidence. We do not use an astronomy source to “prove” astrology, and we do not treat a symbolic tradition as a scientific measurement.
Source hierarchy
| Priority | Source type | Used for |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scientific agencies and professional bodies | Astronomy, planetary motion, constellation definitions and coordinate concepts |
| 2 | Museums, universities and cultural institutions | History, calendars, mythology and cultural traditions |
| 3 | Established reference works | Terminology and historical background when primary material is impractical |
| 4 | Secondary explanatory sources | Supporting context, never as a substitute for better evidence when available |
How claims are written
Wording should tell the reader what kind of statement they are reading. “NASA explains…” signals a sourced scientific explanation. “Astrological traditions associate…” signals symbolism. “In the tropical zodiac…” names the coordinate framework instead of pretending every zodiac system uses the same boundary.
What a citation does—and does not—establish
A source supports only the claim it actually addresses. A NASA page about the ecliptic can support an explanation of Earth's orbital plane and the Sun's apparent path. It does not establish that a zodiac sign causes personality traits.
Reusable factual sources
- NASA: Plane of the Ecliptic
- International Astronomical Union: Astronomy FAQs
- NASA Science: Equinox explanation
- Smithsonian: Lunar New Year context
Corrections and updates
If a source changes, a factual claim is shown to be wrong or a page mixes systems incorrectly, the page should be corrected. See the Corrections Policy.