Talk:Mars effect

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)

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

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)