Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:05, 18 December 2019

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Astrology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages 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| 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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: "Misplaced Pages 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

1. Paul Kurtz, Jan Willem Nienhuys, Ranjit Sandhu (1997). Is the "Mars Effect" Genuine? Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 11 , No. 1, pp. 19–39. available online Archived January 24, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
2. Mars Effect–Dead Or Alive? Dissenting From J.W.Nienhuys’ ‘Retrospect’ - Volume 22, No. 4 Skeptical Inquirer
3. The Mars Effect Cannot Be Pinned On Cheating Parents - Suitbert Ertel. Volume 27, No. 1 Skeptical Inquirer

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—Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages reflects the scientific consensus. It is against policy to use Misplaced Pages 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.—_{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.

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 Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
• Start-Class astrology articles
• Mid-importance astrology articles
• WikiProject Astrology articles