Talk:Mars effect

message: "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)
replies: text: Michel Gauquelin only claim to notability is with the Mars effect: WP:ONEEVENT. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michel Gauquelin is not the Mars effect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Statistical correlation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Caption to the Gauquelin diagram 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Still a mess 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mars effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified