Talk:Mars effect

Untitled

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.
Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.) |}

• Archive up to 1st November 2012

Michel Gauquelin is not the Mars effect

"Michel Gauquelin" is redirected to this page, the one about the Mars effect. I see no reason to redirect the page of a psychologist to the page of a supposedly astrological effect. True, Gauquelin did statistically investigate astrology; and he did proposed the concept of the Mars effect--but so what? It's as if "Albert Einstein" were to be redirected to the page corresponding to general relativity. This does not happen in the Wikipedia entries of all other available languages, where Gauquelin has his own entry.

I'm just curious about the reasons to redirect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.77.172.34 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 24 December 2012‎

Given that there is no article about Gauquelin, and that this article concerns his most notable work (AFAIK), this would seem the most helpful place to redirect the search to, unless you have a better idea.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Michel Gauquelin only claim to notability is with the Mars effect: WP:ONEEVENT. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Biased article

Who has done all the editing lately? Article is much too one-sided. I see most of the editing was done on the 25th of October 2012. They are highly questionable and give a biased impression of the subject. No mention of Ertel, Irving and Muller any more - why? 132.150.8.83 (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Helge Waaler

Ertel published in the unreliable JSE which prints pseudoscience and fringe science, Muller's was published in a parapsychology periodical, and Irving is an astrologer who published in an astrology imprint and thus fails basic WP:RS standards. I'd suggest also reading WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Classification of JSE as "unreliable" is entirely your own which you seemed to have pulled out of your hat so to speak. How about applying the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy?. Besides, The paper that refutes the Mars Effect by Paul Kurtz et al. called "Paul Kurtz, Jan Willem Nienhuys, Ranjit Sandhu (1997) Is the "Mars Effect" Genuine?" - WAS published in JSE, you seem to have no problem at all in citing this (it IS cited as a reference in the main article, look at reference number 5). This is plain hypocrisy to say the least and probably qualifies as Wikipedia:Advocacy, a violation of Policy. Manipulation and subversion using words and bending wikipedia guidelines according to your own whims is quite absurd to say the least. ALSO, Ertel published articles in SUPPORT of the Mars Effect in the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine (which was owned by Kurtz, the primary crtitic) ---

Mars Effect–Dead Or Alive? Dissenting From J.W.Nienhuys’ ‘Retrospect’ - Kenneth Irving, Suitbert Ertel. Volume 22, No. 4 Skeptical Inquirer

The Mars Effect Cannot Be Pinned On Cheating Parents - Suitbert Ertel. Volume 27, No. 1 Skeptical Inquirer

113.30.156.69 (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You cannot apply rigid Wiki-policy interpretations here. This is a controversy over statistics mostly. The battleground has mainly been in three journals – SI, Correlation and JSE. Even the skeptics published in JSE (Nienhuys, 1993; Kurtz, Nienhuys, Sandhu, 1997; J. Dommanget, 1997). Referring almost solely to articles written by the skeptics in SI, and skeptic links is not balanced. Let me remind you that SI has an agenda and is hostile to paranormal claims. Moreover; Ertel has indeed published several articles on the Mars effect in SI and skeptic magazines, alone or with Irving (Update on the Mars effect, SI, 16, 1992; Illusion oder Irritation? Zum übereilten Abgesang von Dr. J. W. Nienhuys. Skeptiker, 10(3), 1997; Mars Effect - Dead or Alive? Dissenting from J.W. Nienhuys' 'Retrospect'. SI. 22, no. 4, 1998; The Mars effect cannot be pinned on cheating parents, SI, 27, no 1, 2003). Ertel has been the main opponent to the skeptics in the Mars effect controversy since G’s death in 1991. Omitting his contributions is plain cheating.132.150.8.83 (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Helge Waaler

If following wikipedia policy is "cheating", then so be it. If Ertel's work is important, I'm sure he'll go to the trouble of publishing it in a non-fringe journal. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"You cannot apply rigid Wiki-policy interpretations here", the amount of times I have heard this in different words. Much along the lines of this straw man: "Wikipedia policies are fine, but it's unreasonable to imply that we should follow them in any situation I'm involved in!" IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To TippyGoomba: If you had bothered to read, you would have noticed that Ertel published in “Wiki-certified” "non-fringe" journals (SI). Please don’t write lies. To IRWolfie: Much the same - you did not address two important points: 1. That the skeptics published in JSE (four times: Nienhuys in 1993 (two articles), Kurtz, Nienhuys, Sandhu in 1997, and Dommanget in 1997). The Wiki-article even uses a JSE source as a reference and (same article) Further reading! 2. Ertel did indeed publish in SI. Obviously, you were not aware of this. Apart from being biased through the omittance of Ertel, the article lacks in several places: The "Zelen test" paragraph is much too long, the "U.S. athletes" paragraph is too short. The "Further reading" is a joke. 132.150.8.83

Sounds good, what's your suggested edit and sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, TippyGoomba. I will make suggestions as soon as I have time (much going on elsewhere right now).132.150.8.6 (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Helge Waaler

References

Statistical correlation

The Mars Effect is the observed statistical correlation, not some causal connection. The statistical correlation exists and that is what was dubbed The Mars Effect. Don't confuse the two, which is what the use of the word "purported" does. The correlation is not purported, it exists. The astrological connection is purported. Blippy (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? I haven't studied the sources but my understanding was that Gauquelin believed that there was a correlation, but more recent studies had found that after correcting for selection bias there is no correlation. That's why the article qualified it as "purported correlation". WP:REDFLAG applies—Wikipedia's voice should not be used in this context to assert that there is a correlation between two totally unrelated sets of data unless there is a meaningful correlation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, my understanding is that the statistical correlation exists - and much of the ensuing controversy revolves around what that actually means. There was much hullaballoo that resulted in some people resigning from CSICOP over misrepresenting the facts. A correlation is not proof in and of itself, but this correlation appears to exist - just as there is exists a correlation between ice-cream sales and shark attacks. It just happens that this correlation has a name. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Later studies could not confirm the correlation, and alternative explanations of the original claims have been offered such as Dean's comment about birth reporting and it being a statistical artefact caused by the specifics of Post-hoc analysis and multiple comparisons. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, when someone quotes policy when reverting your edit, you have to address that policy. Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus. It is against policy to use Wikipedia as a platform to advance the Mars Effect idea. The WP:REDFLAG violation is clear. vzaak (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is I believe a conceptual bug in Gauquelin's work which was unwittingly repeated by the skeptics. Take that out and Gauquelin's results barrel into mainstream astrology like an express train. Sometime soon I will get to that in my weekly newsletter. Original research, sure. Will make all the astrologers howl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.102.104 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Caption to the Gauquelin diagram

As it stands now (March 4, 2014), the caption to the famous diagram reads,

A Gauquelin diagram mapping incidence of birth time and latitude to the natal position of Mars relative to the ecliptic of the rotating earth, showing peaks just after its daily rising and culmination in mid-heaven (horizon and mid-heaven are marked by perpendicular lines). The orbit of Mars in the sky is represented by 12 sectors in the circle, 6 above the horizon and 6 below. The drawn line shows the purported higher birth incidence of sports champions in the key sectors 1 and 4 of Mars' orbit.

"Daily rising" shows Mars in relation to the horizon, which is diurnal.

"key sectors 1 and 4 of Mars' orbit" has two problems.

First, there are no numbers so we do not know where sectors 1 and 4 would be on the diagram. Since astrologers consider the 9 o'clock position to be "1" and then move counter-clockwise around the chart, "4" would correspond to 6 o'clock, whereas "key sector 4" clearly indicates a clockwise counting from the 9 o'clock position to arrive at 12 o'clock.

The second problem is that "key sectors of Mars' orbit" would clearly relate to the signs Aries and Cancer, since these are traditionally counted as 1 and 4 in the zodiac.

So the same squiggly line is said to refer to both the diurnal position of Mars, which comes and goes daily, and its orbit around the sun, which is nearly two years in length. In fact it cannot refer to both.

I've been aware of Gauquelin's work since the late 1980's and am not aware he made any effort to correlate the zodiacal position of Mars with anything.

Also, "latitude" normally refers to the distance from the equator to some point on the earth north or south of it. To the best of my knowledge, this is another area in which Gauquelin did not concern himself. If you mean "zodiacal longitude," you should expressly say that, to avoid confusion. "Zodiacal latitude" is ordinarily associated with declination, another area which Gauquelin - and most astrologers - avoid.

As for the caption, all one needs to say is something like,

Here is the famous Gauquelin diagram, showing the diurnal placement of (Mars) in 360 degree notation, where "0 degrees" is at the 9 o'clock position. One then moves counter-clockwise around the circle. Note the peaks in the 9th and 12th sectors.

Methinks whoever wrote this needs a course in basic astronomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.102.104 (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Still a mess

Well, hello. I'm back again. In this week's newsletter I again need a reference to the Gauquelin sectors and again would like to use Wiki, but Wiki's definition of Gauquelin remains gibberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.102.104 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mars effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130124055709/http://www.scientificexploration.org:80/journal/jse_11_1_kurtz.pdf to http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_1_kurtz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Mars Effect and astrological analysis

If the Mars effect is real its relavence is very slight. It is not in agreement with regular astrology and there should be no relavence no matter what. This is true due to the fact that a planet in any location has in about equal measure negative, or positive attributes and thereby cannot be ananlysed in this manner as all statistical analysis should give a random result. I have looked at Olympic champions and found that the results seem a little better than random chance, but not significant. A planet in any position will in equal measure either incline a person towards the attribute, or away from it in equal measure depending on its placement by sign and due to the aspects affecting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.30.156.69 (talk • contribs) 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It is well known in astrology that Gauquelin used a wrong formula to calculate the houses. The result being that he found statistical correlations for houses 12 and 9, when under proper calculation, they 100% end up in the houses 1 and 10 instead, just like traditional astrology predicts. Whether the statistical amount reported by Gauquelin is marginal was never debated by skeptics, they only questioned his sampling and the math of how he arrived at that amount, claiming that if those two things would be fixed (whereas not even professional mathematicians and statisticians can widely agree on whether their supposed "fixes" were valid or relevant at all in function, motivation, amount, and even mere existence as standard tools or procedures), the significant anomalies were to become marginal. --2003:EF:170A:9207:A1AF:835A:D565:C8C8 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

a wrong formula to calculate the houses is dubious, since there are at least 13 different systems of calculating houses (see House (astrology)). So, it seems that Gauquelin used one system and did not find an effect, and astrologers tried all sorts of other systems and found one where they find an effect. That is called Texas sharpshooter fallacy and is not an acceptable method.

Independent of that, you need reliable sources to change Wikipedia articles. It is well known doesn't cut it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG edit by USR:Quakr

WP:REDFLAG clearly applies, but not to the 2 papers I cited. There is CLEARLY a conflict of interest, since the "skeptics" are being employed and PAID to write papers deriding anything that resembles confirmation of the Mars Effect.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/52e7/f30c74dd07356752564199bb48324a1e47a5.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.8297&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://skepticalinquirer.org/1998/07/mars_effect_dead_or_alive_dissenting_from_jwnienhuys_retrospect/

The above links contain the papers that purport to confirm the Mars Effect. I fail to see how WP:REDFLAG applies to them and not to the "skeptics". Including their analyses in the article is very much warranted, in order for the article to conform to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. These papers clearly claim that the Mars Effect is genuine, and they are NOT by the primary author of the idea - Michel Gauquelin, as the stated in the WP:REDFLAG page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.30.156.69 (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

..checks one source... Society for Scientific Exploration. Yeah, this isn't going in the article. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:GREATWRONGS. If you really believe that astrology is the target of a global conspiracy to falsify research, Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you to promote your ideas. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure. You have no idea what I do or don't believe in, it'd be better not to project. Also, How about the third link, from the Skeptical Inquirer? -

" https://skepticalinquirer.org/1998/07/mars_effect_dead_or_alive_dissenting_from_jwnienhuys_retrospect/ "

You seem to ignore that. Is that also a "fringe" source? I'd say we respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Also, how about this Paul Kurtz paper "Paul Kurtz, Jan Willem Nienhuys, Ranjit Sandhu (1997) Is the "Mars Effect" Genuine?" - Paul Kurtz, Jan Willem Nienhuys, Ranjit Sandhu (1997). Is the "Mars Effect" Genuine? --- https://web.archive.org/web/20130124055709/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_1_kurtz.pdf --- published in Society of Scientific Exploration that REFUTES the Mars Effect? You conveniently seem to ignore the FACT that this is the same journal, and have no problem in citing it (The paper is the 5th reference in this very article) and saying "Yeah, this isn't going in the article". Hypocrisy much?

WP:REDFLAG is one-directional: the burden to provide exceptional sources belongs to the folks with the tin foil hats. Nothing you have introduced that I can access is anywhere remotely close to the level of reliability that would be required (skepticalinquirer is paywalled but not plausible). VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

How exactly is it not plausible? If you want to verify it, go un-paywall it. Also, you didn't reply to my comment about the "fringeness" of this - https://web.archive.org/web/20130124055709/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_1_kurtz.pdf paper, the 5th reference on the Mars Effect page. Calling it a "global conspiracy" is a bit of a stretch, i'd say its just local stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.30.156.69 (talk • contribs)

I addressed that in my reply above. "Astrology is garbage" is a mainstream statement; weak sourcing is acceptable. "Astrology is not garbage" is a red flag statement; quote Science if you want the claim to stay in the article. I say not plausible because if their findings would have been repeated in better sources in the last 20 years if they were as significant as you imply. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That is the weakest refutal ever. "I say not plausible because if their findings would have been repeated in better sources in the last 20 years if they were as significant as you imply." "Quote Science if you want the claim to stay in the article" I sincerely hope you don't believe that. This only tells me that you've never actually published in a high-profile journal. That's not how any of this works. Also, this has nothing to do with "astrology" being bunk. It has everything to do with the refutal of a PARTICULAR paper BY a particular paper. Therefore, your reasoning -- "astrology is bunk" -- for reverting the edit is bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.30.156.69 (talk • contribs)

It isn't my job to WP:SATISFY you, rather it is yours to establish consensus for your proposed edits. It is pretty immediately obvious that Ertel was an astrological apologist, and his "refutal", as you call it, is debunked on the following page of that issue of Skeptical Inquirer (p60). Your proposed addition doesn't meet the high standard of reliability set by WP:REDFLAG that would be required for inclusion in the article. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I cannot access the Skeptical Inquirer source but it is questionable that its conclusions would closely match that of the proposed paragraph (which would then be synthesis), it is also a very old source. As for Journal of Scientific Exploration, as previously noted, it seems to not be a reliable source (published by Society for Scientific Exploration). Material from a generally unreliable source may vary in conclusions and quality, but since it's of poor reputation it should also generally be avoided. —PaleoNeonate – 16:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thing is, the POV that User:VQuakr would like to push purely relates to a dispute on math and sampling, whereas not even professional mathematicians and statisticians can widely agree on whether the supposed "fixes" on behalf of Gauquelin's critics were valid or relevant at all in function, motivation, amount, and even mere existence as standard tools or procedures. In other words, User:VQuakr would like to base their verdict on what belongs in the article and what doesn't not on feeble claims of causation, but purely on some serious math and sampling disputes that not even professional mathematicians and statisticians can widely agree on. For User:VQuakr's rationale to make sense, we'd need claims of causation, not fairly legitimate controversies on the basic math and sampling of correlation where many professional mathematicians and statisticians can't agree whether these issues go in favor of Gauquelin or his critics.

And yes, the entire issue is further complicated by the fact Gauqelin used a wrong formula to calculate the houses, which prompted him to report findings in disagreement with statements about purely geometrical (i. e. astronomical) house placements of planets in traditional astrology, but once you're using proper formulas to calculate houses, his findings do align with traditional astrology. It's important to remember that the fact his house formula was wrong didn't devalue his findings and the fact that according to professional mathematicians and statisticians, he did find significant statistical correlations. Just as important as it is to remember none of the involved in the professional debate are making paranormal claims that he evidenced any causations whatsoever, yet there are significant scientists saying that a.) his findings warrant further investigation, as these findings strongly indicate the possibility that there's not mere coincidence, math, and/or sampling errors at work, and b.) they're also saying that he used proper control to fully eliminate the possibility of popular alternate explanations, namely Barnum, cold reading, and self-fulfilling prophecy (the latter being that one actually knows what their birth chart looks like). --2003:EF:170A:9207:A1AF:835A:D565:C8C8 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)