![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
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.)
|}
"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
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
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
a wrong formula to calculate the housesis 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.
It is well knowndoesn't cut it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
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
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
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.)
|}
"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
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
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
a wrong formula to calculate the housesis 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.
It is well knowndoesn't cut it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
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
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)