Talk:Parapsychology

Archives

Archive 1 Nov 6, 2004

Archive 2 Nov 29, 2006

Archive 3 Feb 24, 2007

Archive 4 March 05, 2007

Archive 5 March 24, 2007

Archive 6 May 26, 2007

Rewrite

I'll be posting a rewrite of this article over the next day or so, addressing some of the issues pointed out on the talk page. Anything in particular anyone wants addressed before I post it? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just get rid of what's here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you be using parts of my draft? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mostly. I'm going to doctor it up a bit since it's unfinished, but just consider what I'm putting up as temporary. You have far more resources than I. I'm just putting something up to fix the immediate problems with the article.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite installed 25 May 2007 is based on the content at User:Annalisa_Ventola/Sandbox with revisions to beef up some areas and provide an accurate representation of the controversy over parapsychology User:Nealparr/Parapsychology_Draft. It's probably not perfect, and not exhaustive (going with summaries of key information versus everything under the sun), but it is a fair treatment that doesn't glamorize parapsychology nor berates it. I'm hoping editors will see this rewrite as an opportunity to foster stability in the article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job Nealparr, the rewrite is much better than the mess before. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

All I did was formatting and a few additions. The kudos definitely should go to User:Annalisa_Ventola who wrote most of it and provided the background studies for sourcing. Barnstar her!

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Nealparr. You really did your homework on those additions! I'm especially impressed with your paragraph, 'Controversial Science', though I think it should be placed as the third paragraph in the lead. Eventually, I would like to get more discussion of anomalous psychology in there (especially in 'Parapsychology Today'), but what we have up there will do quite nicely for now. I'm extremely busy with OSS right now, but I'll see if I can do more chipping at it this week. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

New version and neutrality

First, I want to say I think this new version is not only much better than the mess there was before, but also a very good example of how to achieve a stable and neutral article on a disputed topic. I suggest that a good chunk of this talk page be archived again, the article is very different now.

Now, I'll take the liberty to make a few adjustments. I intend to change the "Critical response" subsection into a normal section, and maybe change its title to "Controversy". I'll also add a link to Selection bias in the "Controversy over experimental results" subsection and one to Project Alpha in the "Fraud" subsection. I hope all this will be ok?

Lastly, I think it would be good to have citations in the "normal" numbered manner, even if just so we can add parentheses in the end of sentences without it look awkward. AoS1014 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any changes as I don't plan to spend much time personally maintaining the new version, I just wanted anything better than the old version. I did want to comment on moving the criticism to a separate section, because I debated that myself in my draft. If you notice in Annalisa's version, it does have it's own section. I purposely made it a part of the research section because I didn't want repetitive information. If you notice in the research section, parapsychology research is presented, then the criticism against that research is presented. If we were to move it to a separate section, it would have to be research, then criticism, then criticism again in a separate section. It would have to be this way because the parapsychology research can't be presented sans criticism. If they had separate sections, it would look and read that way, like the critical analysis is an afterthought instead of directly related to the research.

As I said, you can make these changes, and I won't be opposing it, but I hope you consider the above before you do. The other changes are surely welcomed. I would have linked the selection bias myself but didn't know there was an article on that. The Project Alpha I didn't include because it didn't appear that the results were relevant, as in I didn't see any evidence to support that the research included the hoaxed material. My personal opinion is that Project Alpha's criticism, that parapsychologists can be duped, are overshadowed by natural criticism in methodologies and controls. Anyone can cheat, but if the experimental design is already flawed (as critics assert), that seems more important. If you believe it's notably relevant, however, please feel free to add it.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. We are really hoping to acheive neutrality and stability here, so I'm glad you like this new version better. I think your proposed changes should be just fine.

I've advocated the switch to Harvard referencing for a variety of reasons, and you can find much of the discussion here. I proposed the change because Harvard referencing is the style used in the physical and social sciences, of which parapsychology is a part. It is my opinion that if we want to encourage scholarly contributions and scholarly discussion about parapsychological topics at Wikipedia, then a scholarly system of referencing must be employed. Personally, I like seeing names and dates in paranthetical references because I can tell at a glance where and when the information being used came from. I allowed opportunities for people to veto this change (including leaving notice at this talk page for interested parties to visit my sandbox and weigh in on it), and I didn't face any strong opposition, so I went forward with it. It would be a lot of work to change it back, so I would really like to see Wikipedia users give this system a chance...at least for a month or two. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I considered the inline citation myself, and have even argued against using the APA style. After giving it some thought, however, I agree with Annalisa. There's so many opinions about parapsychology in pop culture, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we should foster scholarly discussion. Even when parapsychology is seen as bunk, it's seen as bunk by scholars. So that's one reason. The other reason is because of how inline citations are used at Wikipedia in controversial articles. I've seen citation requests put on every single sentence here and elsewhere. This article (as written) has entire paragraphs included from the sources. I'd hate to see it decline into the same source [1] being repeated every [1] other [1] word [1]. Featured articles don't look that way, but for some reason these types of articles end up like that.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I ended up making the changes before reading the responses, I didn't expect them to come so fast. I did make "Criticism" into a section, I think criticism is currently fairly concentrated there. As it is, I don't feel the need for redundant information, it seems to work fine to me. One thing that influenced the decision was that having a Criticism section here will possibly allow other parapsychology pages (PK, telepathy, etc) to point here, avoiding the need for redundancy among the pages (and also making it less work to balance neutrality among all pages, I think).

The link I added was to Publication bias, which is what the article was talking about. I still feel like a link to Selection bias can have a place somewhere, but I'm not sure where.

I also added the link to Project Alpha. I think if the article is talking about it, a link is only natural. Criticism about the project could always be added to that page, right? It would be good if somebody could add that link in a manner that doesn't require two parentheses in sequence (I tried a little but couldn't find a way without modificating a chunk of text). This kind of thing was actually the only reason I suggested to change the citing system, apparently you guys have more fundamented reasons to want it as it is. AoS1014 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at adding your Project Alpha link without the need for paranthesis. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks pretty good. I think everything is neutral and comprehensive without going to extremes. Hopefully the article will remain stable as it is now. If so, it'd be the first time I've seen it stable in the two years I've been hanging out here.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just had a cursory scan over the article and I must admit, it definately "looks" better than the previous version. Hopefully will give it a good reading in the next few days (weeks) and comment. Shot info 02:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Scope

It wasn't verbatim before, but the "Scope" section [quote] is meant to be a quoted section [direct quote]. I fixed it so that it verbatim mirrors the source. Everyone has an opinion about the things listed and it's likely to get out of hand otherwise. We're looking for stability here versus "yeah, but...". That's the reason it is quoted directly. Alterations would be misquoting. Sorry if this wasn't apparent in the original version. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this statement means. Are you asking people not to edit the "scope" section? Antelan ^talk 21:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Sorry, I mis-worded that. I didn't mean the entire section, just not the quoted part because it is a direct quote.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Antelan ^talk 21:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

POV Cleansing

This diff makes me concerned that we're seeing the POV shift, subtly but inexorably, towards one perspective in this article. No support was given to the recent one-word edit, but I'm not going to revert because I don't want to play that kind of game. I'd just like to point out that neither sentence is referenced, nor is much of this article, so it's not clear why the word was changed at all. In fact, my sense is that "scientists" is just as accurate and more illustrative than "critics", since these people tend not just to be critics, but also scientists. Antelan ^talk 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather it say "scientists" too because that's what the source says. The paragraph is sourced, to (Odling-Smee, 2007). I know because I wrote this section. The rest of the article is sourced as well. It just doesn't have a [1] every other word.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather hoping that editors will stick to grammar, typos, notable additions that may have been overlooked, and similar edits, at least for a cooling off period. Remember, this article has been the subject of edit warring for at least the two years I've been here. Let's just leave it alone for a bit. Not trying to WP:OWN (in fact I'm disowning it), just asking editors to consider that even the smallest changes might spark tension.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, who knew that changing one word would get such a reaction? I changed 'scientists' to 'critics' because scientists aren't the only people who think that "parapsychological study is at best on the outer edges of science because it involves research that doesn't fit within standard theoretical models accepted by mainstream science." So do philosophers and journalists, for instance. But if 'scientists' is exactly what the article says, then fine.

And this article is quite carefully referenced (using mostly mainstream journals and secondary sources no less), so I'm really not sure what you are talking about, Antelan. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Nealparr understands my concern in this case very well, especially as he has been involved directly in the paranormal arbitration process. Also, my statement about references was a commentary on the choice of Harvard citation instead of the sentence-by-sentence citation that is common to Wikipedia articles. It's not that one way is better than the other. Harvard referencing is smoother for the reader, while sourcing each statement allows any contentious point to be analyzed in the context of its source. Both have their strengths. Antelan ^talk 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely understand your concern, but I can also vouche for Annalisa and encourage a WP:AGF on her edits. She wrote most of the article.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that Annalisa was acting in poor faith. She has always been very cordial. Antelan ^talk 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

DMILS paragraph msleading

In the section on DMILS it ends with a reference to a paper by Schmidt et al saying it has statistically significant results. Is this based on the abstract? I ask because there's an extended abstract of the same paper when it was published in 2002, which is much more negative. It reads: "We found a small mean effect size of d=0.11 which was highly significant (p=.001). This finding is undermined by a best-evidence-synthesis of seven studies with the highest methodological standard, which show a smaller, non-significant mean effect size (d = .05). [...] For the DMILS meta-analysis it has to be assumed that some of the effects reported earlier are due to artifacts and shortcomings." I wonder if the 2004 paper is as supportive of the field as this article makes out. We need more quotes from the paper itself. http://www.parapsych.org/pa_convention_abstracts_2002.html#21 Ersby 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ersby, I just spent the morning reading the Schmidt et al paper, and had edited the DMILS paragraph to address your concerns because overall I did find that the summary was misleading. However, I'm not sure what I am supposed to make of the abstract that you linked above, it has to do with RNG experiments (not DMILS) and has no relation to the topic in question. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Wasn't paying attention.

http://www.parapsych.org/pa_convention_abstracts_2002.html#16

That's the abstract I was referencing. Ersby 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, what you referenced is the abstract for a conference presentation of the same BPS study. Hopefully, my changes to the article more accurately reflect what the study found. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Targ Nature Article

The Targ Nature article is summarized incorrectly. (Tart, C.T., Puthoff, H. E., & Targ, R. (1980). Information transfer under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 284, 191.) There is a Nature paper by Targ that shares this title, but the paper is from 1974 - Nature 251, p. 602. However, this paper does not survey cumulative data; it assesses the data that Targ and Puthoff collected from their studies on Uri Geller. There is a Targ letter to Nature in 1980 by a different title, but this paper is merely defending the results of the 1974 paper in response to a rebuttal written to Nature by another scientist. Antelan ^talk 03:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write that section, but I'm looking into it. I don't have access to all of Nature's articles. Would this be a more or less accurate representation of that article? Also, did you have a rewording suggestion?

Is Tart an author? I only saw Puthoff and Targ listed as authors. The sandboxed version wasn't complete when I reworked it and copied it over. There may be a missing source in that section.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little too busy to look into it right now, but that reference was provided by Dean Radin. There are others that might fit the summary more appropriately such as Dunne, B. J. & Jahn, R. G. (2003). Information and uncertainty in remote perception research, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17 (2), 207 –241. Or the article here. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr - Yes, Tart is an author of the 1980 letter, along with Targ and Puthoff. Targ and Puthoff are the only two authors of the 1976 paper. Yes, the URL you found is, as far as I can tell from matching bits and pieces, an ASCII-replication of the 1974 paper. Antelan ^talk 05:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tart, C. T., Puthoff, H. E. & Targ, R. Nature 284, 191 (1980) Tart, C.T., Puthoff, H. E., & Targ, R. (1980). Information transfer under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 284, 191 Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the letter is the source and provides more information beyond what original paper provided. Anyone got a copy of the letter? If so, it could be reworded to "In a letter published in the 1980 issue of Nature, so and so argued that..."

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, I'm confused by your linking. The first link you gave is to a Nature article that thoroughly debunks parapsychology's purported scientific status, and Uri Geller's claims specifically. It is not by Tart, Puthoff, and Targ. The second link demonstrates that Dean Radin also incorrectly sourced the article. Did anybody here read this article before referencing it? Antelan ^talk 05:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The link to Nature references the same way: Tart, C. T., Puthoff, H. E. & Targ, R. Nature 284, 191 (1980). Try doing a search for it. Why would you think it isn't correct to begin with? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

this also Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

However, I may be confused, because I don't know what you're talking about in the article. All I've done here is to find that the reference is correct and does exist. I don't know how it's being used. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would try doing a search for the articles if I didn't have them on my desktop already. Again, this link that you keep pointing to me to isn't by Tart, et al. It's by Marks, and it rebuts the major claims of parapsychologists. Perhaps its most quotable quote: "Parascience (a term he interchanges with parapsychology) has all the qualities of a magical system while wearing the mantle of science." Surely this is not the article that you think it is. Antelan ^talk 06:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he means that it was referenced in that article by Marks. It's ref num 49.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, dude, but if you searched like I said, you find the ref. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, friend, the paper that you keep referring as being titled "Information transfer under conditions of sensory shielding" was published in 1976 by Targ and Puthoff, Nature 251. October 18, 1974. Pages 602-607. Marks is referring to the letter that these fellows, along with Tart, wrote in 1980 entitled "Information transmission in remote viewing experiments", Nature 284. March 13, 1980. Page 191. The Wikipedia article incorrectly attributed certain claims to the 1980 article. In good faith and having read the two articles, I pointed out the fact that it seemed most likely that the author of this wikipedia article meant to cite the 1974 article. Antelan ^talk 07:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I updated the section with a new source pointed out by Annalisa.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Subtle POV revisited

@Antelan: This edit [1] might be considered what you pointed out previously to be a "subtle" POV shift. The article this is sourced from clearly implies that the methods used are seen as scientific, and this was arguably an adequate paraphrasing of that. The specific statement in the article was "how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific?" WP:WEASEL might call for the dropping of "in general", but deleting the whole phrase? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the main tenet, outlined in a nutshell at the beginning of WP:WEASEL, is Avoid phrases such as "some people say" without sources. I'd have had no problem with a sourced sentence making the "general" claim, and if I was under the impression that there was one I'd certainly have left it and looked for a source to back it up. The rest of the article seems much more strongly written, and I don't think that such an un-backed-up sentence in apparent violation of WP:WEASEL helps it. Antelan ^talk 06:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it up a bit. Let me know if that's better.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Many scientists think the lab's work was pointless at best. But the closure highlights a long-running question: how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific? - This, to me, doesn't support even that claim. In general, questions are not claims; furthermore, this is a rhetorical question, used to transition to the next paragraph. Finally, this is a news article by a journalist writing for Nature, not a research paper or letter from a scientist. The same article says, "Many scientists disagree. Besides being a waste of time, such work is unscientific, they argue, because no attempt is ever made to offer a physical explanation for the effect." Should we reference these in counterpoint? ("A journalist implied that parapsychology is scientific, but many scientists disagree.") It would just be too much POV pushing. I think it makes the most sense to leave out that sentence. Like I said before, the article is better without it. Antelan ^talk 06:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording in our article says "the methods used by parapsychologists". Statistical analysis (the method) is widely seen to be scientific. The source we're using backs that up, and you'll be hard pressed to find a source that says statistics isn't scientific : ) Let me explain better: We're not talking about the work of parapsychology in this phrase, we're talking about the methods used. We're not calling parapsychology scientific. We're saying statistics are scientific. The counterpoint we've included is that whether it's worthwhile to apply statistics to the paranormal research is subjective (straight from the source). When our source calls the "work" (not method) unscientific, they are talking about things beyond the methodology, they are talking framework. Sidenote (nothing to do with the above), the source isn't an editorial (the journalist's opinion). It relies on the opinions of the interviewees (the various scientist's opinions).

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, the source does not back up the statement you are making. Remember how you created this subheading to contest my removal of a sentence? You put that sentence back into the article. My response, above, is an explanation of why that sentence does not belong in this article. You then changed the sentence to read "An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature indicated that the statistical methodology used by parapsychologists may be scientific". The article says nothing of the sort. It actually does say such work is scientific, but I'm not arguing we should have that in there. I'm saying the source doesn't say what you claim it says, and therefore the statement should be removed. Antelan ^talk 07:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits are compromises to the issue you raised. I think the source clearly states that the methods are scientific when it says "if the methods used are scientific", but if you don't agree I'm not sure what would make it alright in your eyes. It doesn't just imply that the methods are scientific, it actually says that. It doesn't say that parapsychology is scientific, but it does say that the tool of parapsychology is. It even uses that same tool later on to say why the parapsychology interpretation may be wrong (H. Bösch et al. Psychol. Bull. 132, 497–523; 2006). I would like the statement to remain because this paragraph is talking about why parapsychology is seen to be on the outer edges of science (which is the subject of the source). If we don't explain why some consider it scientific, ie. because the methods are, the counter-point that some feel it isn't scientific doesn't make sense. How about I just step back and let you tell me what you're looking for and we can go from there, because I don't see why it's still an issue.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The original wording that was removed said "Although, in general, the methods used are considered scientific..." I understand the weaselness, but how is the rest of it controversial? Who doesn't consider meta-analysis to be scientific? Would it be better if it said "Although the methods are considered scientific (source saying meta-analysis is scientific)"? I could do that instead, but that seems like one of those sourcing the obvious cases.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that we are jumping back and forth between two subjects. One is the subject of meta-analysis, and the other is the subject of the statement that I removed and its sourcing. Let me deal with meta-analysis first. Meta-analysis to a method as Reader's Digest is to a reliable source. That is, they are both secondary. Reader's Digest is a secondary source that doesn't publish original research, but they report on it. Meta-analysis is a secondary method that does not gather data, but instead reports on aggregates of it. Meta-analysis is not a method of parapsychology; it is a tool of statistics. Or, if you want to be inclusive, meta-analysis is a tool of virtually every field that can produce data, scientific or not. Now, whether or not that data is valid has nothing to do with meta-analysis, but everything to do with the research methods of the field. Meta-analysis in this argument is simply a red herring.

Second, about the statement that I removed and its sourcing: I don't see how the article gives support to the statement in any of the forms you've shown me. I've described why this is so in my previous comment. As I've said several times, the article stands well without the statement. Antelan ^talk 08:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The version I put below isn't dependent on the source we disagree on and only refers to what you call a secondary methology. It doesn't make a claim that any "primary" methodology is scientific. It's an awful lot like the one you removed originally. It belongs here because it balances the section. The section currently reads as "here's why it's not science" versus the Nature treatment where it presented it as "here's why some think it is science and why that's disputed". The removal is a subtle POV shift, and this is the intro section. I'm concerned that your version gives the topic "the treatment" and there's no reason to do that. There's nothing wrong with the version below. It's informative and when taken with the context of the rest of the intro, informs the reader what the big fuss is all about. Now, I'm compromising on the source though I completely disagree with you. The article is clearly about meta-analysis and says that the methods of parapsychology (sans framework) is scientific. I'm willing to put that to the side. What's wrong with the version below?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I put it back to your edit until we work this out. Now, is there anything wrong with:

Although the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific, an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one" (Odling-Smee, 2007).

The source covers the quote. Do I need to find a source that says meta-analysis is scientific?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your statement has two parts: (1)"The statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific." (2)"An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one."

The second statement is clearly from the Odling-Smee source, and is sourced properly. I don't see any source for the first part. More problematically, as I mentioned above, meta-analysis is a red herring. People do not, in general, have a problem with meta-analysis per se, which is good news for statistics but not particularly germane to parapsychology. The rest of the methods are what people question. This is why singling out meta-analysis and saying it is accepted is a red herring. This is why I can't see how part 1 of that statement fits into the article, while part 2 is appropriately sourced. Antelan ^talk 08:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The first part doesn't need a source because it's obvious. If you need a source that meta-analysis is scientific, and absolutely need it, I'll go find you one. This statement isn't about all the other things that go along with parapsychology. It's not a red herring, it's about part 2. It only introduces the quote, which is about statistics. The first part puts the second part into context. You seem to be trying to fit all of the debate over parapsychology into one sentence. I'm just using part one to introduce part two.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what, forget it. You win by exhaustion. I don't think I can reason with you if you seriously think meta-analysis is a red herring when that is what most of the Nature article is about. You seem to want this article to read a certain way and I am so done with all of that. This sentence always reflected what the source was about. It only suffered the weaselness. I don't know if you just want to be argumentative or what, but come on, did you read the article? The article is all about whether something that uses scientific methods is science if it doesn't have a scientific framework. And you're arguing that it doesn't say that? I seriously don't know why this article is on my watchlist. I'm done, you win, whatever.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather 'lose' than win by exhausting you. I actually think we might be talking about different articles. The Nature article that I thought we were talking about (by Odling-Smee) is not at all about meta-analysis; it's about the closure of the PEAR lab. Are you thinking of a different article? Antelan ^talk 10:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, really, I actually think we're talking about the same article. That article was about the closure of the PEAR lab, and it brought up a few topics in parapsychology in its discussion of the lab's closure. This is not a Nature paper, but a Nature news article. It's a superficial treatment of the closure of the PEAR lab. To construe that article as being all about whether something that uses scientific methods is science if it doesn't have a scientific framework is pretty far off base. It's an article that has one sentence about that, and that sentence is literally worded in the form of a question. A question about a philosophical idea in a news article has been turned into a truth statement about that idea in an encyclopedic article. The problems with that are manifold. Antelan ^talk 10:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, again I don't have a lot of time for debate, but let me toss in two cents. In order to accurately paint a portrait of the field, we have to show in the lead that many do regard the field scientific, even though its methods are criticized and its results are hotly contested. If the Nature article is not a proper source to identify this, then there are other sources that can do the job (such as this chapter from Harvey Irwin's book or James Alcock's article summarizing the field). We can not leave the lead unbalanced.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The news article that Nealparr and I are referring to presents three positions: the 'pro' position (in the end, the decision to pursue tiny statistical edges is subjective), the 'con' position (such work is a waste of time and unscientific) and a middle ground (any question can be asked, no matter how unlikely, but you have to move on when you don't get conclusive results). We're actually citing the 'pro' position from this article, not the con or the middle ground. I'm fine with this, but I don't want you to think that we're being POV against parapsychology with this sentence; it's the pro sentence from that article.

Also, I don't see how we're going to avoid weasel words by trying to force a "many think the methods are scientific" statement in there. The physics article doesn't invoke "many people think". We don't need to here, either. We just need to represent the methods that are used by parapsychology, just as the methods of physics are stated in the physics article. Antelan ^talk 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the same article, and it's not the "pro" position. This statement isn't about the "work" of parapsychology. It's about the "method" of parapsychology. The method (meta-analysis) is said to be scientific in the article. The middle ground and con positions are talking about the work of parapsychology in general and presents framework and pointlessness as the reason, not methodology. Here's a copy [2]. The article uses the closing of the PEAR lab as an opportunity to highlight "a long-running question: how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific?" The bulk of the rest of the article is a discussion of that question and why the work is controversial, examining both PEAR's meta-analysis and the meta-analysis against that (H. Bösch et al.), and showing the various opinions, from scientists. That's exactly what it is about. Our article isn't a paper either. It's a mainstream encyclopedia entry that examines, among other things, philosophical questions. This section in our article is talking about the philosophical question, not data. This source is perfect for that. It's not a New York Times news article. It's Nature. It certainly meets Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source about the topic and talks specifically about what our paragraph here is talking about. My wording was an adequate summary of the points in the article. The article is the most recent discussion in Nature about the topic (Feb. 2007). There's no reason for that line to be removed because it fits in this article, it balances the section, it's a lead into the quote, it's informative for people who come here wondering why there's a controversy, and follows Wikipedia guidelines for submission. Even if I'm off by a few degrees, I'm enough on the subject of the source where it shouldn't be like pulling teeth. I'm not going to argue about it because after dozens of these exact same arguments over minutia, I am just not interested anymore. Here I'm not even arguing for it to be put back in, just explaining why I don't care anymore.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro, con, middle.

Pro = Meta-analysis methodology is scientific, and parapsychology work is worthwhile despite a lack of framework.

Con = Meta-analysis methodology is scientific, but parapsychology work is worthless or unscientific because it lacks a framework.

Middle = Meta-analysis methodology is scientific, but the interpretation of it and whether or not to pursue it is entirely subjective.

Our article here said exactly the middle and this is what the source says.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no textual support for any of your claims beginning with "meta-analysis," since the article makes no statement about the scientific validity of meta-analysis. Your statement, "The method (meta-analysis) is said to be scientific in the article," is demonstrably false. That would make for an interesting article about statistics, but this is an article about the closure of a lab at Princeton. Antelan ^talk 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So there can be no opacity with regards to the article's pro/con/middle, I am copying sentences word-for-word:

Pro: "In the end, the decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws is a subjective one."

Con: "Many scientists disagree. Besides being a waste of time, such work is unscientific, they argue, because no attempt is ever made to offer a physical explanation for the effect."

Middle: "William Happer, a prominent physicist at Princeton, takes the middle ground. He believes the scientific community should be open to research that asks any question, however unlikely, but that if experiments don't produce conclusive results after a reasonable time, researchers should move on. "I don't know why this took up a whole lifetime," he says."

Antelan ^talk 20:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We could avoid weasel words by simply stating something like "Parapsychologists promote a scientific approach to studying various typs of anomalous phenomena, yet their methods and results are contested by critics." Then cite the two articles I linked above as well as the Nature article.

I think the Nature article does a good job of summarizing the controversy, and NealParr's summary does not just present a pro position. However, I do think that the article is a bit overused and some other sources (like the two I linked above from a psychologist and a career skeptic) could help flesh out the lead. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Nature article does a commendable job summarizing the controversy, as evidenced by the pro/con/middle statements I've highlighted above. Nealparr's summary includes material that is not actually present in the article, so it isn't a true summary of the positions of the article. My primary concern is that when we make a statement and back that statement with a source, that source had better say what we are claiming it says. Antelan ^talk 21:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument that the Nature article needs to specifically say that meta-analysis is scientific is an example of just being argumentative. No one, not in that article, nor anywhere else challenges meta-analysis as being unscientific. It's obvious. It doesn't need to specifically say that meta-analysis is scientific in the article. But guess what, it does. It says "if the methods used are scientific". You argue that that statement is unimportant because it has a question mark at the end. Well, it does have a question mark because it's a question that is answered in the rest of the article. This is totally forest for the trees and why I'm saying I'm getting tired of it. The context of the article at Nature says exactly what I'm saying it says. Your pro- con- and middle- statements are "demonstrably false" because they are clearly referring to a lack of scientific framework to explain the results and are talking about whether the field is worthwhile, not that the results were gathered by unscientific means. None of your examples talk about the methods, so how can they be use to represent a pro, con, and middle view of the methods? The first one isn't even pro, it says "subjective", which is neutral. Remember, the statement that you removed was talking about the methods, not parapsychology as a whole, which the article clearly says lacks a framework and may be unscientific, just like our article here says.

You guys have fun, but please take my advice as one who has been working on this article for some time. Line by line deconstruction will burn you out very quickly. It's not even a good editing practice. The context of the entire article presents exactly what you want it to present, but this one line is important because it explains why there is a controversy in the first place. The statistical methodology used by parapsychologists is scientific, so that's why people think it is. All of the other criticism explains why it may be unscientific despite the scientific method. That's how the article read previously. The edit is a subtle POV shift away from that. That's the most important part, but your arguments of why it needs to be removed doesn't make any sense if you actually read the article at Nature and comprehend what it's about. It's exactly about how scientists view parapsychology as questionable despite their practice of using a scientific method.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being argumentative. I'm explaining to you how to cite sources. The source says nothing about the validity of meta-analysis, so in your discussion of meta-analysis you do not say that the source calls it valid. Sorry, this source does not say what you want it to say. Antelan ^talk 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion, because as I already said it does say that. What would it need to say for you to be happy?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

All you'd need to do is to do what I've done: quote to me the portion of the article in support of your position, specifically about meta-analysis. Antelan ^talk 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that it needs to say specifically that "meta-analysis is scientific". That is being argumentative because it's in the very least implied, even if you don't agree that it's clearly stated. It's surely implied when the article uses the H. Bösch et al. meta-analysis to show why the PEAR meta-analysis isn't accepted by scientists.

Second question, what does the source have to do with the version I put above that you're rejecting?

Although the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific, an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one" (Odling-Smee, 2007).

As you pointed out, the source only has to do with the second part. So if, as you say, the source doesn't cover the scientificness of meta-analysis, what does that have to do with the first part? Are you saying that the first part needs a source as well? What if it said:

Although the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific (Another Source), an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one" (Odling-Smee, 2007).

You still going to have a problem with it?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Either the source says what you claimed, or it doesn't. There is no gray area. I see no quote. And to conflate "meta-analysis" with all of the other methods used by parapsychologists, then validate those methods because meta-analysis is broadly accepted, is willfully misleading. Antelan ^talk 22:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Meta-analysis is the WP:N method of contemporary parapsychology which is the topic of the intro paragraph. Whatever validation you think was implied is destroyed by the quote that says it's just a subjective interpretation. Parapsychology is not validated by this Wikipedia article at all.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, meta-analysis is not the method of contemporary parapsychology. Medicine uses meta-analysis, too, but it would be equally inaccurate to say that meta-analysis is the method of contemporary medicine. You have to have analyses before you can have meta-analyses. In order to do the original analysis, you have to have data, and methods for analyzing that data. To have data, you have methods for collecting data. Parapsychology does some sort of data collection and primary analysis. This requires methods. These are the methods that are pertinent to the discussion of parapsychology. I can explain meta-analysis vs primary analysis at greater length if it would be helpful. Antelan ^talk 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were done here. The primary (first) methods used by parapsychology is statistics (they do a RNG and collect statistics), their notable method (what you'd call secondary) is meta-analysis. They design statistical experiments and then apply meta-analysis to the statistics. The whole controversy is over the meta-analysis. Contemporary parapsychology is statistical experiments and the controversy is over the meta-analysis. You really are argumentative, and may not even realize it. You keep laying out these arguments that have nothing to do with anything. If the following methods are used by parapsychology, 1) running a RNG machine, 2) compiling data and statistics, 3) running meta-analysis on the statistical data, and the main controversy being talked about in mainstream periodicals is #3, guess what, that's the WP:N methodology.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that ad hominem is necessary here. Labeling me as argumentative and then dismissing my comments are not constructive. Back to the point: Statistics are never primary methods. Statistics analyze data. The primary methods are used to generate the data. The validity of the conclusions of your meta-analysis depends on the validity of the methods used to generate the data. Therefore, you can run a totally scientific meta-analysis on invalid data and get an invalid result. This is why calling meta-analysis "scientific" is not informative - again, the validity of the result of a scientific meta-analysis depends on the validity of the original methods used to gather the data. Antelan ^talk 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary. You keep changing your argument, ie. being argumentative. First it was weasel and not sourced. I got rid of the weasel part and said the source was that Nature article. Then you wanted to know where it said the methods were scientific, I said in that phrase "if the methods used are scientific". You said that wasn't good enough because it had a question mark at the end. I said, alright, what about the context of the whole article? You said it had to specifically say it and that paraphrasing wasn't enough. You wanted a quote. Neverminding that paraphrasing is completely acceptable on Wikipedia, I said, alright, what if we just use the source as the second part. You said that was fine as long as the first part is sourced too. I find a source that says meta-analysis is scientific, now you're changing your argument again and saying that's only a partial truth. I keep trying to accomodate your issue, but it's like a moving target. All of this validity of the meta-analysis is your newest argument and to that I can only say: Read the Nature article. That is exactly what they are covering and I am trying to mirror that. The Nature article is (again, repeating myself) discussing whether or not it is unscientific, despite meta-analysis being scientific. Or in other words, "Therefore, you can run a totally scientific meta-analysis on invalid data and get an invalid result." That's what I've been saying. That's what the Nature article is saying. That's what our article here at Wikipedia was saying. That's what you just said.

Besides, just talking in circles here. I've already said put it in or leave it out, so all of this is just wasting both of our time. It's your edit. I don't support it. That's Wikipedia. I recommend getting feedback on whether it reads neutrally now and go from there.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for breaking this down line-by-line, but it will be more clear this way:

• You keep changing your argument, ie. being argumentative.

I am making several points, but they are pretty constant.

• First it was weasel and not sourced. I got rid of the weasel part and said the source was that Nature article.

I removed the weasel part. You then inserted the statement "An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature indicated that the methods used by parapsychologists may be scientific [...]".

• Then you wanted to know where it said the methods were scientific

Yes, because this was a new claim, and I didn't see where the article justified that statement.

• I said in that phrase "if the methods used are scientific". You said that wasn't good enough because it had a question mark at the end.

To quote myself from above, "A question about a philosophical idea in a news article has been turned into a truth statement about that idea in an encyclopedic article."

• I said, alright, what about the context of the whole article? You said it had to specifically say it and that paraphrasing wasn't enough. You wanted a quote.

I was able to find specific textual references for each of my points within the article. It is not unreasonable that you would be able to do so if the article backed that statent. Instead, the statement was simply a rhetorical question, a device used by the journalist to transition into the rest of the article. She never returned to it.

• Neverminding that paraphrasing is completely acceptable on Wikipedia, I said, alright, what if we just use the source as the second part.

Yep, that's totally fine by me.

• You said that was fine as long as the first part is sourced too. I find a source that says meta-analysis is scientific, now you're changing your argument again and saying that's only a partial truth.

Yeah, you're totally begging the question here. Your version of the article said, "An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature indicated that the methods used by parapsychologists may be scientific [...]." Meta-analysis is just one of the dozens of methods used by parapsychologists (including their primary methods for gathering and analysing data). To say that the "methods used by parapsychologists may be scientific" just because your source validates that one of their methods can be used scientifically is out-of-line.

• I keep trying to accomodate your issue, but it's like a moving target.

True - when you added that line to the article, I had a new issue with the line you added.

• All of this validity of the meta-analysis is your newest argument and to that I can only say: Read the Nature article. That is exactly what they are covering and I am trying to mirror that.

Oh no, the Nature article is most certainly not addressing meta-analysis per se.

• The Nature article is (again, repeating myself) discussing whether or not it is unscientific, despite meta-analysis being scientific.

This is why I keep asking for you to provide a quote - the article says nothing of the sort. It is mute on the status of meta-analysis. Even if this interpretation of the text were correct, it would be irrelevant to the version of the article that you proposed, which dealt with "methods used by parapsychologists" (which certainly includes more than just meta-analysis).

• Or in other words, "Therefore, you can run a totally scientific meta-analysis on invalid data and get an invalid result." That's what I've been saying. That's what the Nature article is saying. That's what our article here at Wikipedia was saying. That's what you just said.

I'm saying that just because meta-analysis may be done scientifically does not mean that you can then jump to the conclusion that "the methods used by parapsychologists may be scientific," unless meta-analysis were the only method that they used.

You are saying:

1. Meta-analysis is scientific
2. Parapsychologists use meta-analysis among their methods
3. Therefore, the methods used by parapsychologists are scientific

This is an Illicit major syllogism. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, because meta-analysis is not the only method used by parapsychologists. Consequently, I do not find that source sufficient to support the statement, "the methods used by parapsychologists may be scientific".

Antelan ^talk 02:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not accurately worded. My proposal says "the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists", not "the methods used by parapsychology". Each time above you quoted the latter, but the latter (original) was based on the literal line from the Nature article and that ship sailed long ago when we couldn't agree on what the article said. I changed it in each subsequent proposal to say "statistical methodologies" to address the very concerns you are repeating. I also moved it outside of "An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature" long ago because we didn't agree on that, so as not to give the impression that Nature said it even though I believe it's clear enough. There's no "truth statement" about the methods of parapsychology being scientific in my proposals, only a statement about meta-analysis being scientific, which is the crux of the contemporary notable controversy, which is what this paragraph is talking about. All the other stuff is in the Criticism section. There's no statement at all about parapsychology being scientific, experimental data, conclusions, other methodologies, primary methodologies, or anything like that. It doesn't make a claim as to whether those are scientific. The statement that you find hard to swallow is only talking about statistical methodologies, which are verifiably scientific. All of the logical fallacies you say I'm making here aren't actually based on what my proposal said:

Although the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific, an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one" (Odling-Smee, 2007).

Again, this is not saying parapsychology is scientific. It is not saying all methods used by parapsychologists are scientific. It is not saying any conclusion or data asserted by parapsychologists are scientific. It simply explains why parapsychology is considered (by some) to be the scientific research into the paranormal, but fully explains in the paragraph around it why that is frequently disputed and explains that further in-depth in the Criticism section.

That's for my own explanation, above. I really do think at this point that you should get someone else's feedback about the neutrality of this article however. I'm personally done with it and have only been responding to you directly on the talk page.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion: I'm fine with this version that you've proposed (Although the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific (Another Source), an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one" (Odling-Smee, 2007).), so long as there is actually an RS that states that what is claimed. I'm all about proper attribution. I'm not inherently opposed to the statement, just to loose referencing. Antelan ^talk 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I find that to be reasonable. Since I'm obviously partial, I'll let someone else reinsert it if they agree with what I've said. If not, I'm cool with that too. Here's the "Another Source" that can be used: Meta-analysis: a tool for medical and scientific discoveries. Bulletin of the Medical Librrary Assocation. 1992 July; 80(3): 219–222. There's also a number of similar "meta-analysis is scientific" articles in its reference section that can be alternates.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your partiality is of little concern to me if the statement is accurate and you can find an RS that supports it. If you would like to write about meta-analysis and its scientific validity, that belongs in an article on statistics. If you would like to write about parapsychological methods, that belongs in this article. Antelan ^talk 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the statement is accurate and RS's are there now. Are we done yet? They're your edits, I certainly don't support them. Might as well add it to the ArbCom along with everything else while it's still ongoing. Link to this thread and get some feedback. I don't think it's neutral anymore. See what everyone else thinks.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Which of the ArbCom pages do you think I should post this to? They're all so long at this point, I'm not sure where it would get seen. If you're as unsure about it as I am, I'll just post it to the Workshop Discussion page. Antelan ^talk 02:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page maybe? It's up to you if you want to make a proposal out of it, but if you just want some feedback I recommend the talk page of the Workshop section. I'm personally addressing your arguments for removing the line, but the actual issue for the article itself is whether it currently reads neutrally. You can leave the line in or out, but I recommend addressing the neutrality of it whichever way. My personal opinion is that it comes down on parapsychology in the paragraph now, versus before where it talked about how there's a controversy. That's my opinion, but others might not catch that or see what I'm saying and disagree. If you do post it, please link to this thread because I'm not really interested in repeating myself anywhere : )

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem

The "Scope" area seems to be a violation of copyright and doesn't meet the criteria for fair use. Copyright being owned by the The Parapsychological Association all rights reserved. I'll advice someone re-write it and put it into their own words or else I'll have to request it be deleted immediately.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not supporting the article, so do with it as you wish, but it certainly does fit the criteria for fair use.[3]

The four factors of fair use are:

1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

This is non-profit and educational.

2) The nature of the copyrighted work;

This is a frequently asked question which clearly does not represent any sort of intellectual property they would reasonably want to keep internal.

3) Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Does not constitute either a large portion of the entire frequently asked questions nor a large part of the site as a whole.

4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

They are neither selling their frequently asked questions, nor would this portion reduce their ability to do so.

Copyrights are one of the things I've done a great deal of research on for my day job. Can you give one reason why it would be considered non-fair use?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can answer that: Too much text taken for no good reason when paraphrasing would be equally fine. If you do research for your day job perhaps you should be more dilligent. Typical fair use is only short paragraphs or sentences, not multiple ones. DreamGuy 03:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's numerous examples of fair used multiple paragraphs, but this isn't even a multi-paragraph use. It's just the list. The criteria for fair use is listed above and is quoted from the copyright office. It makes no mention of sentences, paragraphs, or anything your describing. The "too much text" is specifically covered by the proportion to the entire work, and it doesn't say anything about "no good reason". The "reason" it does mention is for non-profit/educational, ie. Wikipedia. I was pretty dilligent. It is fair use. I also said delete it if you feel like it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging of Controversy in parapsychology page

I vote a simple redirect as this page already neutrally covers the controversy. If there's any major ideas over there that are not already covered here, they can be integrated. At first glance (without reading through it all the way), I didn't see any.

I'd also like to see other orphaned pages about parapsychology slimmed up or summarized and integrated as well, especially if they aren't standalone pages. Psi (parapsychology) would be a standalone page, but lists like List of basic parapsychology topics and List of parapsychologists aren't really necessary. Research results in parapsychology, Fraud in parapsychology, Psiology (<-- possible delete as a neologism), etc. can all be redirected here.

Some of the things that are redirected here should redirect to Psychic. Among these are the misspelled Pshycic powers, but also Psychic children, Psychic ability, etc.

There's probably some that I'm missing, but these should probably be tightened up. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merger. But don't forget to adequately add in the relevant information from those articles into this article if it's not already here. We don't want to delete relevant information in order to merge them. Try to condense them into sections so they can be added to this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, relevant information should be integrated. I'd add that it should be notable information (to keep with the slimmed summarization style). For example, there's a mention of Gambling over there. That would be more like a rhetorical "oh, and another thing" rather than an actual noteworthy idea in the controversy. I'd hate to see everything copied over because it still reads as "criticism" and "response" which is exactly the sort of thing the article was rewritten to avoid. Most of the stuff over there is already covered in the criticism section here, just not as bulky.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, you should discuss a proposed merge on the talk page of the article to be merged, not on the talk of article it will be merged into. Second, what Nealparr has proposed is not a merge. It is effectively deletion. If you want to remove all the content, then you need to propose a second AFD. The main parapsychology article does not cover even most of the topics covered in the current controversy article, so any argument about duplicate content is nix. The controversy article is too large to just dump into this article without removing essential content, and the amount of content therein is too much to place in this article. The controversy article is not small enough to merit a merge purely on length grounds. A controversy/criticism content fork is one of the most common and useful splits that happens in articles all over Wikipedia. VanTucky 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, first off the "discuss" link on this article led here. I could care less about the other article, even if it is deleted. Second, I did leave a link over there saying there's another discussion here to be helpful. That aside, what essential information is over there that isn't already over here? Most of it is a criticism section. In that criticism section are topics that are already covered in this article's criticism section (and covered better because there's no POV back and forth). I don't want to remove content. I'm saying the content is already here. If there's something that isn't generally covered here, and is notable, it should be copied over. I never said it shouldn't be.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether you care about the article or not is of no consequence. The policy and process set up for deletion of articles is not something you can circumvent at a whim. It is a very serious breach of the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia to delete an article that has already undergone one AFD process with zero upfront discussion about the proposed deletion. Proposing a merge is not a sufficient substitute for a complete deletion process as outlined in WP:Deletion.

As to your claim that Controversy is simply duplicate content, Controversy covers sections on a different analysis of alleged fraud, in-depth criticisms of parapsychology's methods, results, replicability, the assumption of psi, statistical signifigance, conditions in which experiments are conducted, and more detailed discussion of the allegations of pseudoscience. All the detailed content and sources on those subjects are not duplicated in this article. If you so insist, I can bring the entire sections I'm speaking of here, but that might be too big to be workable. Simply read the sections that are titled as above. Furthermore, on a simply practical basis as outlined in WP:SIZE, the current Parapsych article is 43KB long. This current length alone may merit a review for more splitting, not less. Most admins and editors who do splits commonly fork content just after 32KB of length. With adding the entire 15KB of unique information from Controversy, that would bring the article up to 58KB. Which clearly is clearly ripe for splitting. VanTucky 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're all worked up? I just expressed my opinion on the matter, which resulted in you first jumping on me saying I'm talking in the wrong place. Now you're now saying I'm trying to "circumvent at a whim" AfD policies? Dude, check the history [4]. It used to redirect to this article anyway before Antelan reinstalled the old copy on 16 June. It already pointed here.

Again, I said... relevant information can be copied over. They call that a merge. It is my opinion that there's not much additional information to copy over that's not already covered generally here. That's why it said more like a redirect. The in-depth, detailed discussion is not necessary in an encyclopedia. If you disagree, that's fine. You can express your opinion without saying I'm trying to cheat guidelines and policies.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nealparr, that we just need to integrate the major points, into this article, if there are any which aren't already covered. Then redirect. We do not want to delete, but redirect when major points are covered in this article. This article can have a larger controversy section than most, because of the nature of the subject. If we are going to fork content on this article, I suggest we fork the less controversial parts, and keep the more controversial ones in the main article, where they aren't probably so subject to everyone adding their favorite arguments. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep it over there, reinstall the redirect to here like it was before, put it up for AfD. Whatever. I just ask that people check the history before getting on my case.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

An in-depth discussion isn't necessary in an encyclopedia? Are you shitting me? From Encyclopedia,

“ An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. ”

Wikipedia is here to provide as much verifiable, detailed information on a topic as does exist. If you think it isn't, you might be in the wrong place pal. You seem to be arguing not that the information in Controversy belongs expressly here, but that it doesn't belong anywhere at all. What specifically of those many topics covered in the controversy is covered here? The fact that some of the ideas (such as claims of bad methodology and pseudoscience) are simply acknowledged here is not a duplication. The controversy article then goes into detail on these criticisms and several others. The criticism section exists as an introduction to the deeper coverage in the split article, which is something expressly described as necessary by the guidelines for splitting articles. The fact that a cursory intro of the fact that people make those criticisms is not a duplicate to a discussion of the substance and reasons given in the Controversy article. Removing the detailed content of what those criticisms are would be a direct violation of NPOV. VanTucky 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to see if there are any points not covered in the current article (I mean, ones which actually need coverage)? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if there is content you feel is unfit for inclusion you need to bring up on the Controversy article, not by a merge. Merging means to merge all the factual content of an article, not cherry-picking. If you mean give examples of content that is unique in the controversy article, see my list of topics above. VanTucky 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And as to special size considerations, this article is not an exception to the style guidelines set forth in WP:SIZE, 58KB is too big. As to removing other content to include the entirety of Controversy's coverage, there are no other complete topical sections that are as large as the Controversy article. Nothing else needs splitting. VanTucky 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the article adds nothing new. If you feel it is does, then you express your opinion without being a WP:DICK. Instead of expressing your opinion, you instead attack me and say I'm trying to cheat the system. Maybe you don't understand the difference between deletion and redirect. Deletion requires an admin, consensus, and is permanent. It has a difficult process for restoration. Redirect retains the information as before and can be restored by any editor who feels there is a reason to, as in the case of Antelan who thought it should be revived. It is nothing at all like "circumvent[ing] at a whim" policies. If you stop being a WP:DICK, then we can talk about your actual points. I'm getting really tired of the hostility. To your actual point, you have a case for keeping it. Convince others and keep it. I really don't care. I've expressed my opinion. I still think that way. You don't actually need to convince me, you need to convince others who do care.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't call me a dick for attacking what I saw as policy circumvention. Read WP:NPA, a criticism of someone's actions as being against policy is not a personal attack. And I have continued to say anything about it, so let it go. I'm not saying you're got bad intentions for the article or are stupid. Removing a large amount of content from an article, not merging it into the other article, and then placing a redirect is a deletion of content. I obviously didn't mean a complete erasure of the article's placeholder and history. That's not what a redirect does. But most importantly, hostility to a merge is not hostility to you. Don't take my passion for advocating an interpretation of policy personally. VanTucky 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was full of quotations which don't belong in Wikipedia. I'm trying to get rid of them in favor of a well-sourced summary. VanTucky is reverting to keep some of them in. There is no reason for the article. The controversy should be kept in this page, and should be extremely brief but extremely well-sourced. As to the size suggestion, we can go over it if we need to. Many pages do. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, discussions of content present now in the article which you feel shouldn't be is for elsewhere. The dispute is over whether to merge the content there now into this one unaltered. Your feeling that the critcism of Parapsychology should not go into detail is unfortunately not inline with NPOV. The mainstream criticisms of parapsychology as outlined in the split article deserve just as much detail as the main study of parapsychology itself, that is what NPOV means. Equal, balanced coverage. Not a cursory overview. VanTucky 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I won't call you a WP:DICK : ) I'm just weary of hostility here. I will say you're wrong. This: "Nealparr and Martinphi keep trying to use a merge as excuse to delete legit criticisms found in the Controversy article, besides that the main article is big already per WP:SIZE"[5] simply isn't true. I personally want all notable criticisms in this article, without unnecessary wordiness, because that will let readers know all they need to know about the topic. I specifically said copy over what isn't here already. If you feel this article is leaving something out. Add it. If you feel there is too much to add, summarize it here and go indepth in the Controvery article. That's all fine. My opinion was that I feel this article is a good enough summary of the controversy (most of the article is about the controversy) and that articles don't need to be an exhaustive "book" about the subject. The style I'm advocating is a slimmed summarized version. I'm not trying to delete legitimate criticisms. There's three things you say I'm doing and none of them are true. 1) Nothing deleted, but summarized, 2) Encyclopedias don't cover every thought imaginable and do in fact summarize the notables, 3) Nothing deleted but instead summarized does not mean any of the POVs are lost. Now that all of that is out of the way (I'm not advocating deletion of POVs), the issue is really to summarize or not. I feel less is more. If you disagree, that's fine because it's just a style issue.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

When you ask me to include any information on controversies and criticisms of parapsychology not in the article, I would respond by including all of the content of Controversy in parapsychology. But this is not possible because of the very clear considerations to article length we are admonished to observe.

When detailed discussions of a topic exists (as in Controversy) it is Wikipedia's purpose to include them, and not having a split article for Controvery in parapsychology and summarization within sections is a failure to present all the information availiable on the topic. Which again, is Wikipedia's goal. Comprehensiveness. If the information on that topic is too large to both keep comprehensiveness (our primary goal) and have the article meet the clear length guidelines, it is never preferred to remove comprehensive information on a topic just to cram it in the article. A failure to provide comprehensive information on criticisms of parapsychology is a violation of NPOV because it fails to fully discuss legitimate (legit as in, legit to include per notability) points of view. Simply acknowledging the list of criticisms exist when detailed information on the reasons, motivations and response to the criticism is available is unacceptable. VanTucky 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Two separate things my friend. One is comprehensiveness, the other is neutrality. If all points of view are summarized it is not a neutrality issue. All topics in this article are summarized, whether they are positive, neutral, or negative. It's arguably a comprehensiveness issue, but not a neutrality issue. There's a great deal of expansion that can be done in this article, but it would be a mind-numbing, exhaustive, fall asleep in the middle of it experience. There's over one-hundred years of detail we could get into. That's just my opinion though. The NPOV part is not opinion, that's a fact. It is not a NPOV issue to summarize all points of view. No point of view is expanded on more than another in this article. Even the neutral historical point of view (the bulk of the article) is summarized.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So, criticism of, say, the field of Mathematics deserves as much space as the article on Math itself? Get serious. Criticism deserves a bit more space in parapsychology, but not nearly as much as the subject itself. We need to keep the criticisms in the articles on topics themselves (such as the Ganzfeld, or Psychokinesis).

What I've been doing is summarizing, and taking out the wordiness. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about literal "space", space is not an issue on Wikipedia. And obviously, the information simply about Parapsychology is much more (43KB) than the Controversy article (15KB). But when enough information on any certain aspect (whether it is History or Criticism) of a subject to create a split exists, we do not just delete the content so as not to have a split. This is especially true when concerned with opposing viewpoints. And if more information on the criticisms of Mathematics than the Math article actually occurred, it would be perfectly fine. And large deletions of topics altogether in the Controversy article is not "removing wordiness". VanTucky 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Split is fine. I don't think it's necessary, but if you do go for it. But you're talking about neutrality now. It's not a neutrality issue to summarize. Parapsychology being (43KB) versus Controversy (15KB) doesn't mean that parapsychology "wins". Parapsychology is partly larger because it regurgitates much of the Controversy article but also includes the history (neutral), labs (neutral), what the do (worded neutrally) and outside links (neutral). It's not a byte competition and neutrality isn't achieved through file size.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

43 KB. That's actually what my first post in this thread is talking about. 43 KB isn't a whole lot, but it's certainly enough to cover something that isn't all that noteworthy in science or psychology, but has an interesting history. Sure size doesn't matter at Wikipedia, but at what point do you say enough disk space has been spent on this not so notable topic? That's why I'm advocating roping in some of the orphaned articles. They really aren't necessary.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, so you agree with me that the criticism section should be much smaller (as parapsychology is not its critics- there are 4 or 6 main scientific critics, and a lot of parapsychologists). Now, if a summary of the controversy (which is what an encyclopedia provides) turns out to be small enough to put in the main article, then what's the problem? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. And you're discussing what merits inclusion in the Controversy article again, which is not what this is about. Separate subject. But just for the record, outside criticisms of a field create controversy, thus they and the responses deserve mention in a discussion of controversies. There is no policy/guideline in Wikipedia that says criticism of a subject or controversy surrounding it must be smaller than encyclopedic information on the topic itself. Honestly, I can't see why you would feel like it has to be that way, unless you feel it's necessary to keep criticism to minimum to inflate the subject for a reader. And just as a side note here Martin, it isn't exactly a great idea to be advocating deletion of criticisms of a subject (even if you're possibly right) when you're the subject of a review for POV-pushing on the subject. VanTucky 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky, would you please stop pushing so hard? Would you please stop edit warring? And please notice that 1. I'm not deleting any significant and current criticisms, and 2. I wrote that article in the first place, including nearly all the criticisms. So please stop being a disruptive editor. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete information from the to be merged article until it's merged. Merge the articles adding only the most relevant information. Problem solved. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And talk about the content, not the contributor. Do you really think that saying that someone else edit warred, even if manifestly unilateral, which it is not in this case, is going to help improve this article? Antelan ^talk 03:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Our WP:NPOV policy is pretty clear that there is no need to give equal time to both sides, but that the coverage of a topic should not in any way give a slanted version to readers. Skimping out on the controrsy parts, and not letting people know right away that parapsychology is not considered reputable by most scientists is a major slant that confuses readers into thinking it is more well regarded than it is, thus giving the pro-paranormal side undue weight. Many of the comments above seem to want to give the topic more respectability by keeping the controversy section of this article very small. I don't know how bad the current article is (the biggest problem -- the totally deceptive psychology templates -- were removed by me), but I am concerned from the tone of comments that people are trying to hide parapsychology's poor reputation from the world. DreamGuy 03:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, if you read the parapsychology article, it does come down on parapsychology. There's no other way to interpret it. It doesn't come down hard, for neutrality reasons, but it does come down. The whole thing is themed that it is a fringe science that isn't accepted by mainstream science. All of this "it doesn't cover the criticism" stuff is not true at all. Parapsychology is, however, an accepted area of transpersonal psychology, hence the psychology templates. There are several parapsychology labs in psychology departments. Some parapsychological studies make it into the Psychology Bulletin. And so on.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some conflation of "admits that parapsychology isn't totally accepted" and "comes down on parapsychology". Also, those parapsychology labs in the US have started closing, which I've begun to catalog. Antelan ^talk 04:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into another one of those long conflation discussions : ) Can we at least agree that it doesn't promote parapsychology? I mean people are talking like it's pro-parapsychology. On a sliding scale between 1 and 10, parapsychology is less than 5 in this article, as it appropriately should be.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments above were not necessarily about the status of the article as it stood at the time but to warn people that some comments above about changes they wanted clearly expressed the wish to try to go easy on parapsychology. Also, the templates to psychology (two of them even!) were clearly out of line and a blatant attempt to try to make the field look far more respectable thatn it is. Thhose templates have nothing to do with parapsychology, and there's nothing on them at all that relates to the content of this article. DreamGuy 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You said, "Parapsychology is, however, an accepted area of transpersonal psychology, hence the psychology templates.".

That article says, "Transpersonal psychology is sometimes confused with parapsychology, a mistake made due to the overlapping and unconventional research interests of both fields." I see a conflict between your rationale and the understanding from that article. Hey, on the plus side, the authors of that article called the methods of parapsychology scientific. Antelan ^talk 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hence not psychology, psychology ctegory and templates are HUGE violations of WP:NPOV policy, so I have removed them aagain. DreamGuy 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, guys, don't pin it all on me. There's a lot of references in the article dealing with psychology and parapsychology and linking the two. It takes an argument to unlink them because sources do in fact link them. It's not necessarily right to remove the templates when they are sourced as best you can do with templates. If you do want to pin it all on me : ), the part I was referring to in the transpersonal psychology article is this:

"The transpersonal perspective spans many research interests. The following list is adapted from Scotton, Chinen and Battista (1996) and includes"

Parapsychology is in the list. There's also other sources if you need them. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Referencing, the smart and easy way

When claims are referenced in most Wikipedia articles, there is a numbered link to an endnote containing the reference. That an article may deviate from this pattern is understandable, but why this article does so is confusing. This is a topic that is extremely hot-button, so one would think that we would want each statement to be as specific and well-referenced as possible. However, that is not the case here.

Furthermore, this article is rife with external links throughout the body. In fact, one of the references that I cited via <ref> tags was turned into an external link by another editor. Why is this being done? Antelan ^talk 19:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I made it an inline citation Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Embedded_links so I wouldn't have to add yet another thing to the reference section, just for an external link note. The link didn't show up when it was <ref>. The rifing of external links throughout the body is really only in two sections. I went to fix those but stopped short when I realized that I couldn't just remove the links because in a way they are the source for the text. Removing it would leave the text unsourced. The reason I haven't fixed that just yet is because I haven't figured out how.

I wouldn't mind going back to the <ref> because it is easier. The problem I forsee with that is the {{fact}} tag being used inappropriately again. Instead of [1] being the reference for the paragraph as proper, it will end up being some text [1] some text [1] some text [1] when [1] is for the entire paragraph.

Either way though. Just someone else do it. If you don't like it, please accept the burden of changing it.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping anyone from wrongly using a fact tag right now. Also, I agree that we can't just cut the links, since they are also sources. The <ref> tags will show up if we include a footnotes section (it just requires <references/>). I will change this, but I wanted to include it for discussion first because I'm tired of people WP:OWNing the articles I'm trying to improve and reverting reasonable changes. For those reading this: if this doesn't sound like something you've done, then I'm definitely not talking about you. Antelan ^talk 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, there was no corresponding <references/> and I didn't include one because I thought we were doing the APA thing. If you make the changes, I'll support the change. I understand Annalisa's reasoning and in a normal web article I would personally use the APA style. Here I just don't think it's practical.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

With numbered citations you can cite a source for a whole paragraph or for a single sentence if you choose. If someone adds a "fact" tag then you simply revert it and explain in the revert why it's already sourced. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

When we first started working on the draft of this article's rewrite, we questioned whether we should be using WP:FOOT or WP:HARV. I left a notice on this talk page inviting anyone who was interested to come over to my sandbox and discuss it. At the sandbox discussion, we did something of a straw poll, and there were no strong objections (only one person voted), so I carried on with WP:HARV. Antelan, I personally invited you to take a whack at the sandbox draft before Nealparr installed it here. I find it very interesting (to put it lightly) that these kinds of objections are being raised after all of those opportunities were ignored. I've already argued why Harvard referencing is the better system for this article elsewhere, so I'm not going to waste my time doing it again here. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning merger...

I want to get a good idea of who supports this merger and who doesn't. Without adding any arguments for or against the merger just tell me whether you support or oppose the merger. This isn't a vote of any kind to determine the outcome, simply a straw poll to see who supports it right now and who doesn't. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

support- Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

support if merging means to merge all the factual content of the article rather than cherry-picking. - LuckyLouie 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

support with LuckLouie's suggestion. In fact, I would go further and say let someone else other than Martinphi or myself choose what is already here and what isn't, so there's no question about it. Sad that I have to say that, but apparently I have to. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

support?:I'm not sure about the difference between a merger and a redirect. I think a redirect would be better. The criticism section in place is very general in order avoid turning into a criticism-response type of section. If we can maintain the current feel of the criticism section, then I'm all for it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

support as a general principle that WP:FORK files are bad. DreamGuy 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Slimmed down to essential and current points, and without the quotes. Nealparr has it right that the debate is endless, and where is the stopping point? I was wrong to write this as I did, because there is no logical stopping place in the discussion. We need to just mention (with sources) the essential arguments, and leave it at that. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(Odling-Smee, 2007)

It seems odd that an article with such a long, long list of references constantly refers to (Odling-Smee, 2007) over and over again. Can't we spread the references around? What's with this one article that makes it such an influence on virtually every section, sometimes mere sentences apart? DreamGuy 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to find a way it can be accessed by internet users or else find a better source. We need to get a link for it and reference it properly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, that's not a requirement that it must be on the accessible on the web. There's plenty of books, etc. cited at Wikipedia. The reason it is used so much is because it's the most recent article about this stuff that's appeared in the mainstream periodical Nature. It's from Feb. 2007 and talks about the closing of the PEAR lab. It also talks about the varying opinions over the research. That's why it's used so much. It's relevant. It looks like it's used a lot, but that's just because it's used a lot for the intro. That's because the topic of this article (parapsychology as not accepted by mainstream) deals with the topic of the other article at Nature. Here's a copy I wasn't supposed to have uploaded. It's verbatim, you can check with Antelan as he has an original.[6]

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's here. Even though it documents the lab's closing, there's a slightly sympathetic overtone, e.g. "is parapsychology treated unfairly?". - LuckyLouie 21:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's clearly apologetic. The title of the article is "The lab that asked the wrong questions". Wrong questions? Try "The lab that got no results". I don't believe it should be excluded because it's POV but I also don't believe it should be used to cite anything important and I believe it's definitely used far too much in this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a big debate about this earlier. Nealparr and I respectfully and mutually disagree with each other about how this article represents the "pro" "neutal" and "con" positions in parapsychology. At any rate, it is a journalistic piece reporting on a scientific debate, and as such it may suffer from presenting unequal sides equally. Nevertheless, it's much more neutral than most other articles on this subject matter that I have seen. Antelan ^talk 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, big disagreement, I conceded gave up, and it is journalistic. I don't think it's apologetic, however, and neutrally describes the current relevant controversy. I think it's definitely reliable by Wikipedia standards, especially for outlining why we're talking about, parapsychology's scientific status. I don't think it's apologetic because it clearly describes parapsychology as failed, deprecated, or unworthwhile.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal right now. Let's focus on the merger if we can. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not germane here, but you and I never agreed on which positions outlined in the article were pro/neutral/con, and you certainly never conceded. This is demonstrated at the Subtle POV revisited section on this very page. Antelan ^talk 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, gave up is more the right word. Is that relevant? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I staked out Position A, which maintained that the portion of the Nature journalism piece most favorable to parapsychology was being used. You staked out Position B, which maintained that the portion of the Nature journalism piece least favorable to parapsychology was being used. Neither of us budged, and consequently nothing was changed. You call this "giving up"? It could only be "giving up" to the same extent that I also gave up. And I've already said it's not relevant, but accurate representation is important to me so I'm explaining this here. Antelan ^talk 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The disagreement was whether or not the article said that the methods of parapsychologists were scientific. I said that it either implied that or said it clearly. This disagreement centered on the removal of words to that effect in this article. The words are still removed. I didn't put them back in. I gave up on the conversation and recommended adding it to the ArbCom or not per your discretion. Position A, position B, I don't know what you're talking about. The position I took you said doesn't even exist in the article, so I don't know how it could be either an A or a B.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this better explains it. In the part where we were talking about pro, con, and middle views, I was only talking about the methodologies, not the overall view of the work of parapsychologists (results, conclusions, etc.). As you may recall, I mentioned that distinction and tried to get you to see that the article made the distinction. That ship has sailed, but now, when speaking of the work of parapsychologists, if you read the Nature article closely there are actually four views.

View 1: Parapsychology is worth pursuing (Chris French, pro).

View 2: Parapsychology is a waste of time, unscientific (Robert Park, negative).

View 3: Parapsychology should ask these questions, but give up after awhile (William Happer).

View 4 is that "In the end, the decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws is a subjective one." In other words, which of the three views you choose is subjective. That is the neutral point of view. In your pro, con, middle statements, you completely skipped over view 1 and listed view 4 as the pro.

Now, that's not to say all three views are equal according to weight. The article also covers that mainstream science does generally see that it is a waste of time. Not necessarily that the work is unscientific, but that it is a waste of time. That is a sort of fifth view framing the other views in terms of parapsychology's status. That is neutral because it's a status view, unopposed by other views. In other words there's no one saying parapsychology is widely accepted.

So the combined neutral view from that article is that the decision whether or not to pursue parapsychology is subjective, but that mainstream science considers it a waste of time.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, are you really going to characterize our disagreement like that? I thought we had both agreed that we were reasonable - if I have to restate the entire argument, I'm going to be really disappointed. The way that you have explained the disagreement really ignores my position. I know you're not happy with the status of the article, but I'm equally unhappy with it. Antelan ^talk 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reasonable, but the only thing I can truly agree with is that it doesn't seem like we can agree on much of anything : ) The disagreement, at least form my point of view, was about the removal of the words, my perceived shift of the POV, and whether or not the article at Nature said scientific methodologies. If you think it was about something else, sorry man, I really don't know where you're coming from. That's what all my posts were about. I apologize if I didn't explain my points correctly or something, but that's what they were. As far as your position goes, I can't speak for you. Above, where I said you skipped over view 1, I didn't say that was intentional. This should be considered a new conversation anyway. Here I am talking about the status of how parapsychology is viewed by mainstream science. The previous discussion was just about the methodologies pertaining to that one edit. The question now is whether this is an appropriate source for the article and what does it say about the work (results, conclusions, etc.). It's a new topic. Sorry if I am not explaining this clearly. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

External Linking

Please could we have some other people weigh in on the matter before this turns into an edit war? According to my reading of WP:EL, it is entirely appropriate for an article about parapsychology to contain links to the homepages its major organizations, academic labs, and journals. Dream Guy apparantly disagrees. Let's talk about it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL is for the External links section, not for the body of an article. Furthermore, WP:EL says major, not a big huge long list of every one you can think of. The current External links section is way, way too long. Wikipedia is not a web directory. DreamGuy 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to the external links list, if you are looking for big long lists of every one I can think of, look here, here and here...and even then, I left off a lot of stuff.

The links in the body of the article are links to the major organizations. Not only that, but those links function as citations. Remove those, and we're just dropping names without sourcing them.

Obviously, we are discussing two different matters here, so which one would you like to tackle first?--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology and Psychology

Dream Guy, please explain to me why you insist that parapsychology has nothing to do with psychology. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to have absolutely nothing to do with psychology. Some small minor part of parapsychology studies would be psychology, yes. In order for the templates to be here parapsychology as a whole, as covered by this article, would have to be recognized by experts in the field as being a significant ("notable" in Wikipedia jargon) part of psychology. Otherwise having that here is deceptive, and a violation of NPOV policy because it gives readers an entirely incorrect idea of the nature of this topic. DreamGuy 04:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is an academic study that is largely practiced by psychologists in universities (i.e. 'experts'). Paranormal studies is something else entirely. You used the term 'parapsychology studies' here, and frankly, that's the first time I've heard of such a thing, which makes me question how you are defining the field and your level of familiarity with it. As far as wikipedia goes, parapsychology is listed a topic in psychology here and WikiProject:Psychology has found it to be a notable topic for their efforts [7]. Perhaps we should invite some of those editors to chime in? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. "parapsychology studies" isn't something to hear of, it's a phrase taking the word studies onto the word parapsychology... as in studies (experiments) done in parapsychology... how can you not have heard of that? It's just basic English. And the idea that you are trying to dismiss my comments entirely based upon you not understanding a simple phrase is just ludicrous. As far as the mention in psychology, any random person can run through and do that, that's in no way authoritative. You can't cite some random edit by random unreliable Wikipedian as a reliable source, that's circular reasoning. Frankly, your belligerence over this issue and attempt at character assassination shows why you are currently undergoing arbitration for massive POV-pushing. DreamGuy 06:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Main image for the article

I'm looking for a good candidate for a main image for my draft of the parapsychology article rewrite. An image that can be placed at the very top right beside the first paragraphs that basically is defined by parapsychology or has a lot to do with it. Any ideas? You might be able to find a fair use or public domain one one Google or somewhere. Try to find me one. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What about a Kirlian photograph? They are quite distinctive. VanTucky 04:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kirlian is a totally debunked notion. Just use this: (image of cards) Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sign your name martin. I removed the image because it messed up formating on the talk page.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some other distinctive image would work better than Zener cards. Something nice looking. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck : ) I wanted to find some good ones myself and all I came up with were the ones that are already there. I couldn't even find one of Rhine that I was sure would be OK from a copyright standpoint. The Zener cards are historically and popularly associated with parapsychology, so that's what I would recommend. Parapsychologists became interested in Kirlian photography in the 1970s and became disinterested in the 1970s as well, so I would skip that. If you can find a fair use one of the PEAR ball slots, that's what I wanted to use.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This image [8], but not the entire office, just the ball slots. The idea behind that experiment is that the balls drop and and are supposed to form a bell shape, and psychokinesis changes that or something. Bit of trivia : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since PEAR, where I believe Nealparr's photo is from, is defunct but the person running the place believes he proved his point, that may be a perfect photo agreeable by all sides. Antelan ^talk 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to find another version of it though. That one's from the Nature article about the PEAR closing, copyright. I'm sure there's something out there similar, but I don't really know. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Antelan ^talk 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)