From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Parapsychology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Parapsychology 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience


In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
The four groupings found at WP:PSCI
  • 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.
  • 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.
Of relevance to "Generally considered pseudoscience"


Important note, and requests by nick5990[edit]

Note that there are presently no citations to previously published scientific journals for the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs for "delusions" and "psychosis" under "Origins of the concept". Thus it is likely this is someone's opinion rather than based on sound sources. These 2 paragraphs should be removed if not questioned until their verifiability is confirmed.

Please add as a reference and external link on the telepathy article page, since it is currently not listed. This will provide readers with a more informed view of the topic and past scientific research into telepathy. Nick5990 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)nick5990

I removed your comments from the article, and I'm glad that you have put them here. I moved your signature to the bottom, after all your comments. I don't have time to investigate at the moment, but there are a couple of references. Possibly you are saying that references 11 and 12 only verify some fact not directly related to the text as it relates to the topic of this article? That would need to be checked. Please be patient, it may be a few days before anyone looks further. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Nick is not entirely correct but I am glad he has pointed this out about that section. The stuff on "psychological symbiosis" was original research. I cannot find any reference linking this to telepathy. The content however about delusions and psychosis being linked to belief in telepathy are well sourced. Goblin Face (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
A second look at this, I think it is possible that Nick5990 (talk · contribs) is the previously banned user Eameece (talk · contribs) who had vandalized this article, they both sign their comments in the wrong way, have the same writing style and have said the same things about the article. Goblin Face (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong, Goblin Face, as usual. Eameece (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)eameece

Wikipedia loses a lot of credibility because bonifide research into paranormal subjects is not allowed on its pages, or even on its talk pages. To say that refusal to cover this research, or even allow links to it, is NOT about "improving the article," contributes to this lack of credibility. Most people know that telepathy exists, because they have experienced it. People want information on the subject. Now, people wanting more information on this subject are blocked from getting it, just because wikipedia editors want to limit coverage to one point of view, and call any alternative views that are posted to this page "vandalism." Allowing links to research that shows telepathy exists, as well as research that doesn't, would vastly "improve" the article. Right now, coverage is limited to research saying it doesn't. This research is mostly carried out by skeptics, and most of the links on this page are not to researchers, but to skeptical writers. This is a very poor article that hurts wikipedia's reputation, and articles like this and others on related topics cause many people to look upon wikipedia as an unreliable resource on many other topics. Why can't there be a place on wikipedia for knowledge on these topics, and not just one point of view? Eameece (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)eameece