Talk:Natural experiment

Science Mid‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

"Snow on Cholera" Revision

I don't believe the famous "Broad Street Pump" story is a natural experiment - if anything it is a bad observational study with little to no inferential power; that particular outbreak was already largely over by the time the handle was removed, and so the effects it had are totally confounded by other things going on at the time (e.g. people fleeing the neighborhood). The "natural experiment" Snow is famous for and David Freedman alludes to in his book "Statistical Models" is the larger study of London water companies using the natural randomization of supply pipes. If anything, both Snow and Freedman are aware of the limitations of the Broad Street story and argue it isn't a natural experiment at all. Snow describes his water company study, but not the handle-removal story, with the word "experiment", and says that unlike his observational studies, the water company study could yield "the most incontrovertible proof".--Beheim (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-experiments and "Snow on cholera"

A quasi-experiment is not a natural experiment. Could this entry be edited differently? Snow's study of cholera in London in the 1840s was more of a natural experiment.Iss246 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Iss246 made a correct complaint, and a good suggestion. I removed the distraction about quasi-experiments and shortened the first paragraph (improving clarity, one hopes). I adapted material from the WP article on Snow & cholera, adding reference to Freedman. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game shows

Please add some published references. I recognize that Thaler is usually reliable, but somebody really needs to find published reliable sources. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question of merging with observational study

I am opposed to such a merger. The natural experiment is a rare and unusual type of study. It is observational, yes. But it is the rare kind of observational study that provides a basis for ascertaining causality. I think it was wise to raise the issue because the issue needed airing. However, I think that the natural experiment should stand by itself, with links back-and-forth with the observational study entry. I plan to include such links. Iss246 (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have copied this to the discussion pointed to on the merge template Melcombe (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Melcombe's deleting observational study from the "also see" section. I don't see the harm of having observational study in the "also see" section even if the term "observational study" is also in the text. Having "observational study" in the "also see" section" gives the reader a backstop, a second chance to pass through to the observational study entry, particularly if the reader did not want to pass through when encountering the expression early in the natural experiment entry.Iss246 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is partly a matter of convention, first, to have "see also" rather than "also see" and, secondly, to avoid repeating links under "see also" that are already in the main text. See WP:ALSO for the guidance. Of course there are other ways handling what you want to do, for example ending the article with a "Related ideas/Related concepts" section that could have one or two sentences about the relevance of the topic. Melcombe (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing back. I changed the above heading to "see also." I looked at the style manual. I see your point. My goal for inserting observational study into the "see also" section is to help the reader with unfamiliar material. I think a small amount of redundancy in the "see also" section would help the reader.Iss246 (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

‎86.4.50.198

I think you and I are succeeding in improving the opening paragraph. Iss246 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Original" map from John Snow

My understanding is that the map shown is and old map, but not the original made by John Snow.