This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lunar effect article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Lunar effect was copied or moved into Transylvania Effect with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
There was a study in Quebec ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235964/Full-moon-Patient-study-confirms-common-myth-lunar-patterns-driving-mad-false.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) heard on radio today - they found no empiric evidence of full moon affecting mental health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autismal ( talk • contribs)
I'm not really a believer in this effect, but there's no mention that there's simply more light during the fuller phases of the moon, and therefore it's much easier for people to be active outdoors, especially in rural settings. (As a teenager, I certainly learned it was much easier to be out and up to no good near a full moon.) More people out and about equals more crime. Studies may not support this, but it's a much more reasonable hypothesis to believe in than tides and positive ions. M-1 ( talk) 18:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
This is to be distinguished by the mere presence of greater light of the moon that may rouse someone from sleep or even make possible some conventional nighttime activity (as with the harvest moon). Although night usually affords a measure of privacy for doing anything possible (strange or otherwise) in limited light, a full moon can undermine that privacy. Pbrower2a ( talk) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The Straight Dope counts as a reliable source? Hell, I'd buy that before some webiste called Skepdic.com, I suppose. But anyway the lede of the article establishes a rather dismissive tone of the entire subject, declaring it an "unfounded belief" right at the start. If this belief, which is supported by at least some evidence, (i.e. it isn't "groundless", being another word for unfounded), is "unfounded" then I'm guessing I can pop over to, say, Christianity and see that it's described in its lede as "the unfounded belief that a Sky Daddy created humans to worship Him, and later sent his Son to be a stand-in sacrifice for mankind's sins"? No? Hmm. Okay, then surely the article on Islam will describe it as "the unfounded belief that a dude in a cave in the mountains talked to the Angel Gabriel, who told him how everyone on Earth should live and behave." No? And yet both of those beliefs are supported by less direct evidence than even belief in the Lunar Effect, which is to say they have exactly zero, since no one's currently alive who could possibly have witnessed either of them first-hand, and yet those beliefs, as ridiculous as they are, aren't dismissed out of hand the way this one is, even though it's attested to directly by thousands of people. The examples of the Lunar Effect are largely anectdotal, but not entirely, and to be fair the article does reference several studies that corroborate it. Would anyone really see a problem with simply removing the word "unfounded" from that sentence? The conclusions some people have drawn may be, as the article implies, founded on false ideas or mistaken assumptions, but they certainly aren't "unfounded". So why not just describe it as "the belief that...." and go on from there? 77.58.231.67 ( talk) 15:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The reasons for belief section, states this gravitational effect is untrue because of scale difference and weakness of this effect being insignificant. The obvious point here being that gravity is the same whether its full moon or at any other phase. Tides happen daily caused by the earth's rotation, whilst the lunar cycle is the moon's orbit. They have simply confused this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.123.246 ( talk) 02:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
[1] Where does this study, recently reported in Current Biology, fit? It seems to suggest that the opening paragraph of this article might need to be adjusted (although a replication would probably be required first). Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, “astronomer George O. Abell” is a competent astronomer. But he fits for the waste-basket as a physicist. Lunar gravitational influence on the Earth’s surface is not dominated by a tidal force exerted on small bodies, such as humans. It is a tidal force exerted on the whole planet, weakening its own gravity around sub-lunar and anti-lunar points. Humans are not usually falling, floating, or orbiting Earth such that tidal effects on their tiny bodies could be relevant. They are usually standing, sitting, or lying, i.e. they exhibit the reaction force against the Earth’s gravity. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 19:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
“ | a mosquito would exert more gravitational pull on your arm than the moon would. | ” |
— George O. Abell, http://www.skepdic.com/fullmoon.html |
but ionic charge—positive or negative—has no effect on human behavior, and no physiological effect other than static electric shock.[39] see new york times article http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/06/science/ions-created-by-winds-may-prompt-changes-in-emotional-states.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.5.117 ( talk) 02:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
From the section Human behavior: "but this correlation disappeared when the local clarity of the night sky was controlled for, suggesting that it was the brightness of the night that influenced the occurrence of epileptic seizure". Regardless of the clarity of the night sky, on a full Moon the sky will be bright and you will therefore be unable to see faint astronomical objects, only the very brightest stars. Presumably they mean if it is cloudy? Cannot read the original article as it is behind a paywall. Aarghdvaark ( talk) 02:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The only sources for the effects on plants are from www.downhome-mystic.com and www.gardeningbythemoon.com. They are based on unsupported claims.
I think the section should just say that there seem to be no reputable studies on the effects of the phases of the moon on plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.51.13 ( talk) 09:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
This study was only on children and it is not clear how the data on sleep was taken. They were not laboratory results and thus suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.253.120 ( talk) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The articles cited in the stock market section may be a good source of references for other sections of this article. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 19:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"Despite all of the beliefs, no valid scientific study has ever found a significant extraordinary effect of the full Moon on life on Earth."
This is a huge claim. NO EFFECT? Come on people. If an owl can see a mouse across a field, and has amazing visual acuity, and has the intelligence to navigate its home forest... we're really saying it has NO concept of fluctuating light levels at night over a 28 day cycle, one of which is the brightest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.250.51 ( talk) 02:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I know we are strictly forbidden, on pain of death, from using the painfully disgustung and plagiaristic Daily Mail as a source, but this artiucle mentiins a paper in the journal Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. It is claimed that: "The study indicated that patients who have aortic dissection repairs performed during the full moon phase had a significantly shorter length of stay than those who were treated during other stages of the Moon’s cycle – 10 days for the full moon cycle compared to 14 days for the other phases." Is this correct? Or notable? Or do we need a medical secondary source? Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The source of the claim in the politics section does not appear to meet WP:RS. Has the claim been cited in reliable sources? If not, should this section be removed? JeanLucMargot ( talk) 02:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lunar effect. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lunar effect article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Lunar effect was copied or moved into Transylvania Effect with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
There was a study in Quebec ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235964/Full-moon-Patient-study-confirms-common-myth-lunar-patterns-driving-mad-false.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) heard on radio today - they found no empiric evidence of full moon affecting mental health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autismal ( talk • contribs)
I'm not really a believer in this effect, but there's no mention that there's simply more light during the fuller phases of the moon, and therefore it's much easier for people to be active outdoors, especially in rural settings. (As a teenager, I certainly learned it was much easier to be out and up to no good near a full moon.) More people out and about equals more crime. Studies may not support this, but it's a much more reasonable hypothesis to believe in than tides and positive ions. M-1 ( talk) 18:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
This is to be distinguished by the mere presence of greater light of the moon that may rouse someone from sleep or even make possible some conventional nighttime activity (as with the harvest moon). Although night usually affords a measure of privacy for doing anything possible (strange or otherwise) in limited light, a full moon can undermine that privacy. Pbrower2a ( talk) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The Straight Dope counts as a reliable source? Hell, I'd buy that before some webiste called Skepdic.com, I suppose. But anyway the lede of the article establishes a rather dismissive tone of the entire subject, declaring it an "unfounded belief" right at the start. If this belief, which is supported by at least some evidence, (i.e. it isn't "groundless", being another word for unfounded), is "unfounded" then I'm guessing I can pop over to, say, Christianity and see that it's described in its lede as "the unfounded belief that a Sky Daddy created humans to worship Him, and later sent his Son to be a stand-in sacrifice for mankind's sins"? No? Hmm. Okay, then surely the article on Islam will describe it as "the unfounded belief that a dude in a cave in the mountains talked to the Angel Gabriel, who told him how everyone on Earth should live and behave." No? And yet both of those beliefs are supported by less direct evidence than even belief in the Lunar Effect, which is to say they have exactly zero, since no one's currently alive who could possibly have witnessed either of them first-hand, and yet those beliefs, as ridiculous as they are, aren't dismissed out of hand the way this one is, even though it's attested to directly by thousands of people. The examples of the Lunar Effect are largely anectdotal, but not entirely, and to be fair the article does reference several studies that corroborate it. Would anyone really see a problem with simply removing the word "unfounded" from that sentence? The conclusions some people have drawn may be, as the article implies, founded on false ideas or mistaken assumptions, but they certainly aren't "unfounded". So why not just describe it as "the belief that...." and go on from there? 77.58.231.67 ( talk) 15:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The reasons for belief section, states this gravitational effect is untrue because of scale difference and weakness of this effect being insignificant. The obvious point here being that gravity is the same whether its full moon or at any other phase. Tides happen daily caused by the earth's rotation, whilst the lunar cycle is the moon's orbit. They have simply confused this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.123.246 ( talk) 02:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
[1] Where does this study, recently reported in Current Biology, fit? It seems to suggest that the opening paragraph of this article might need to be adjusted (although a replication would probably be required first). Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, “astronomer George O. Abell” is a competent astronomer. But he fits for the waste-basket as a physicist. Lunar gravitational influence on the Earth’s surface is not dominated by a tidal force exerted on small bodies, such as humans. It is a tidal force exerted on the whole planet, weakening its own gravity around sub-lunar and anti-lunar points. Humans are not usually falling, floating, or orbiting Earth such that tidal effects on their tiny bodies could be relevant. They are usually standing, sitting, or lying, i.e. they exhibit the reaction force against the Earth’s gravity. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 19:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
“ | a mosquito would exert more gravitational pull on your arm than the moon would. | ” |
— George O. Abell, http://www.skepdic.com/fullmoon.html |
but ionic charge—positive or negative—has no effect on human behavior, and no physiological effect other than static electric shock.[39] see new york times article http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/06/science/ions-created-by-winds-may-prompt-changes-in-emotional-states.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.5.117 ( talk) 02:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
From the section Human behavior: "but this correlation disappeared when the local clarity of the night sky was controlled for, suggesting that it was the brightness of the night that influenced the occurrence of epileptic seizure". Regardless of the clarity of the night sky, on a full Moon the sky will be bright and you will therefore be unable to see faint astronomical objects, only the very brightest stars. Presumably they mean if it is cloudy? Cannot read the original article as it is behind a paywall. Aarghdvaark ( talk) 02:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The only sources for the effects on plants are from www.downhome-mystic.com and www.gardeningbythemoon.com. They are based on unsupported claims.
I think the section should just say that there seem to be no reputable studies on the effects of the phases of the moon on plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.51.13 ( talk) 09:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
This study was only on children and it is not clear how the data on sleep was taken. They were not laboratory results and thus suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.253.120 ( talk) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The articles cited in the stock market section may be a good source of references for other sections of this article. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 19:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"Despite all of the beliefs, no valid scientific study has ever found a significant extraordinary effect of the full Moon on life on Earth."
This is a huge claim. NO EFFECT? Come on people. If an owl can see a mouse across a field, and has amazing visual acuity, and has the intelligence to navigate its home forest... we're really saying it has NO concept of fluctuating light levels at night over a 28 day cycle, one of which is the brightest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.250.51 ( talk) 02:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I know we are strictly forbidden, on pain of death, from using the painfully disgustung and plagiaristic Daily Mail as a source, but this artiucle mentiins a paper in the journal Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. It is claimed that: "The study indicated that patients who have aortic dissection repairs performed during the full moon phase had a significantly shorter length of stay than those who were treated during other stages of the Moon’s cycle – 10 days for the full moon cycle compared to 14 days for the other phases." Is this correct? Or notable? Or do we need a medical secondary source? Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The source of the claim in the politics section does not appear to meet WP:RS. Has the claim been cited in reliable sources? If not, should this section be removed? JeanLucMargot ( talk) 02:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lunar effect. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)