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

Archive 7 June 29, 2007

Archive 8 July 03, 2007

Archive 9 July 17, 2007

Great job on the merger

To everyone involved, great job! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, It seems to be going well. I've got a question about these articles...

Fraud in parapsychology, Research results in parapsychology, List of basic parapsychology topics, History of parapsychology, List of parapsychologists, Scientific investigation of telepathy.

I've merged a few, However many of them contain information that isn't redundant but is still in terrible formating and in sad shape. It would make more sense to merge them to this article, adding a few bits of the relevant information from whatever is left. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What we should do is link them {{main| Article}} for now, per WP:Summary and put "merge" tags on the appropriate ones. If there's no objections, I can handle that.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just nominated this for GA. While it seems to be worthy of FA, I think we need to wait and demonstrate stability. Receiving GA is a good step towards ensuring the FA is taken seriously. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the "Parapsychology" category to each of the articles listed here List of basic parapsychology topics, then I'm going to merge that page to the Category:Parapsychology. Someone help me, Start at the BOTTOM and add [[Category:Parapsychology]] to each page. I'm going from the top down. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. seems it's already done. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The same thing needs to be done with List of parapsychologists except for Category:Parapsychologists Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I linked the "fraud" and "research" sections to their main articles. "Scientific investigation of telepathy" really shouldn't redirect here as it's an offshoot of telepathy (or should be). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion both should just be redirected here. I can't imagine how either are salvageable as articles. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but isn't there a bit too much content (at least in the Fraud one) to simply merge? VanTucky ^(talk) 00:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but others may not. So you post a "merge" and let it take care of itself. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we've seen how that happens. The tags sit there for months with nothing progressing. I also don't want to see a big ugly "merger" tag on this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The traditional process is to tag it with merge. There may be other editors invested in those articles who don't know about the draft update here. That said, WP:BOLD. The can always revert it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care either way. But as I honestly don't have much of an interest in expanding a sole fraud article, I'll consent to a merge/redirect. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected them. If anyone thinks they deserve their own articles, let them work on them, I see no way to salvage either one of them and see numerous copyright, POV, grammar, redundancy, and Style problems. Nearly all of the relevant information in them exists in this article or it's sources. As you say, They can always revert it if they don't like the redirect. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I think that nominating this article for GA status is waaaaay premature. There are a lot of grammatical issues and general readability issues that need to be addressed.

I have made edits to the first paragraph and first paragraph only. Feel free to work at it yourselves. Aside from adding the bit about the "phenomena suggestive of survival of consciousness", and the deletion of the last sentence, the paragraph reads roughly the same, but tighter and better I think.

I'm going to wait a while before I go onto the next paragraph. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"phenomena suggestive" vs. "the idea of"

I used the phrase "phenomena suggestive of survival of consciousness" to reflect the idea that many (if not most) parapsychologists think that alleged hauntings, poltergeists, reincarnation, etc... is explainable by the behaviors of living people rather than the dead. If you think that this phrase is somehow POV, perhaps we could arrive at a compromise. However, parapsychologists don't study "the idea of" of survival. Maybe there is a better way? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply saying "phenoma suggestive of" positively asserts that the phenoma they are studying is patently suggestive of life after death. It could say: "and other phenomena related to the concept of survival of..."? VanTucky ^(talk) 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What if we left off "phenomena suggestive of" altogether, and just left it be (kind of like we do with extrasensory perception and psychokinesis)? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Right now it says..

"a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine, studies phenomena suggestive of the survival of consciousness after bodily death"

Erasing that part in question would render it..

"a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine, studies phenomena."

Perhaps we should just change it to...

"a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine studies the possibility of survival of consciousness after bodily death."

Sounds Fair to me. BTW, It seems to be doubled. See below. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That last one is much better WDM. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you all are talking about the lead, I prefer VanTuky's edits. I prefer it say...

"is the study of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena, such as extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death."

Opposed to...

"is the study of evidence for paranormal psychological processes, such as extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and phenomena suggestive of the survival of consciousness after death.".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already changed it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Integrating " Laboratories, organizations and journals" into article as a whole

The "Laboratories, organizations and journals" is already partially integrated into the article. The first paragraph of "Laboratories, organizations and journals" is the same as the 2nd paragraph of "Parapsychology today". I suggest we integrate "Laboratories, organizations and journals" into the rest of the article and delete that section all together. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps it could go into the "Research" lead? VanTucky ^(talk) 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be integrated into the entire research section. Not just the first research paragraphs. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see this section stay, especially since I had plans to expand it in my original draft. But I'm willing to compromise since much of that material is present both in the article and the external links section. I would be even more agreeable if we could compromise by including a small list of links to the major journals in the external links section. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Si, eso es bueno. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead an delete/integrate the section, and I'll make a short links list and install it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's actually quite a long list. You should probably trim it down to about 5 links per section. 5 for "University research laboratories", 5 for "Independent research organizations" and 5 for "Journals". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but simply choosing a number seems kind of arbitrary. These are the major journals that are currently in press and written in English. Instead of limiting by numbers, we should think about limiting by criteria. What criteria do you think we should use to decide what gets put in the external links list and what does not?--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Integrating Laboratories, organizations and journals into Parapsychology today

I'm Integrating Laboratories, organizations and journals into Parapsychology today. I noticed that the former seems to be mostly dealing with labs and journals in North America. I cut a few out and integrated it into the flow of parapsychology today. I would like to see some more cut out and others added in from other parts of the world, other than North America. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is fine for now. I was going to complete similar sections for Europe, Asia, and Australia, but didn't get around to it before my sandbox version was installed. Perhaps I will suggest a few when we get around to fine-tuning 'Parapsychology Today'. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the material, even from the Parapsychology today section. Most of that material is present elsewhere in the article, including the external links and the references. Since I wrote the material originally, I doubt that anybody else will complain about it disappearing. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Crit part of intro

... needs grammar cleanup. I'm not touching it myself. The third sentence (as of this timestamp) is a run-on sentence --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

See also

I installed the following type of format on the paranormal article some time back to counter-act boring and useless bulleted see also lists. It's based on some of the see also's I've seen in FAs and resembles tagging.

Paranormal: Cryptozoology, Forteana, Ghosts, Mysticism, New Age, Occult, Paranormal fiction, Paranormal explanations for UFOs Parapsychology, Places thought to be haunted, Psychics, Supernatural, UFOs, UFO reported sightings
Skepticism: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Debunking, Hoaxes, James Randi, Prizes offered for paranormal proof, Skepticism
Science: Anomalous phenomena, Fringe science, Pseudoscience, Scientific method

Maybe something like this could be used here as well. There's potentially several related articles that would be appropriate to the see also section, and a format like this could include them without looking gawdy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

More Edits

My edits to the first paragraph seemed to go over fairly well, so I have moved onto the second paragraph. The newest changes are significant. I tried to keep the general idea of what was there already, but there have been a lot of changes. If you don't like something, either edit it yourself, talk to me about it, or both. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr's changes

Instead of making a new section for each change in meaning I'd like to make (I don't see many at this point), I'm just going to lump them into a section.

• Plan to change "methods of parapsychologists as a pseudoscience" to "work of parapsychologists..."

Why? Many of the critics who feel this way are referring to the work in general as pseudoscience, or the conclusions as pseudoscience, or the ideas as pseudoscientific, etc. even when they think the methods themselves are scientific. Taken as a whole it's pseudoscientific, according to them. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds about right. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Third paragraph of intro, first sentence...

...needs to be worked out here. Editing it too many times could look like an edit war when all we're trying to do is make the sentence clear. I personally am not into the word "sometimes" because it's not like Hyman and Alcock only criticize it some of the time. Something like "and others" needs to be there because of non-scientists like Randi. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination review

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, I found some issues that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 30, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

• labs - informal, use laboratories
• been circulated in mainstream journals - "published" is better
• Parapsychology has met criticism by some in the scientific community, as well as others. - this sentence is unclear.
• Parapsychology was coined - a word is "coined" (although this phrase is a cliche) but a field is "started"
• The early membership of the SPR included philosophers, scholars, scientists, educators and politicians of the day - How could its membership have included people who had lived at other times? Cut "of the day"
• standard laboratory procedures for the testing of ESP evolved - A good general rule when writing about science is to avoid using technical terms to mean something distinct from their accepted meanings - "were developed" would be better.
• Rhine established and popularized the word "parapsychology," which Max Dessoir had coined over forty years earlier" - He didn't invent this word, so what is meant by him "establishing" it? How is this different from "popularize"?
• Levy's fraud was noted in Time Magazine (August 26, 1974) - Convert to a reference.
• Critics contend that meta-analysis is basically a post hoc data analysis and that evaluation of the methodological quality of a study after it is done and the results are known can create opportunity for biases to affect the analysis, and that various strategies, methods and criteria can be used, which can provide different outcomes and an opportunity for selecting outcomes which are consistent with the expectations of the analysist. - This sentence is over-long, contains multiple parentheses and thus becomes unclear. Break into two or three short, clear sentences.

2. Factually accurate?:

• the study of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena - I don't think this is true, might it be better to say the examination of possible paranormal psychological phenomena as this field does not limit itself to evidence for these phenomena, it also studies evidence against these phenomena.
• The scientific reality of parapsychological phenomena - There is no such thing as "scientific reality", scientists live in the same reality as everybody else! :)

3. Broad in coverage?: OK

4. Neutral point of view?:

• The cumulative data was interpreted by some researchers and The meta-analysis was comprised of 380 studies, which some researchers say - According to the NPOV policy, when making statements about groups, it is necessary to state how large these groups are in relation to the rest of the population in question. As no other interpretations are reported, is this the only significant opinion of these results?

• Looking at the article, this last point could be easily fixed by stating who you are citing for this opinion. Just a matter of noting who was the lead author of the paper that made this interpretation. Tim Vickers 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

5. Article stability? OK

6. Images?: OK

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Tim Vickers 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Tim! We'll get right on it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Nice work everybody. Tim Vickers 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you do FA reviews as well? or have any recommendations for that? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes made

• Lab/Labs were changed to laboratory/laboratories. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Circulated changed to published. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Coined" fixed. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Third paragraph of intro clarified. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Deleted "of the day" VanTucky ^(talk) 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed established/popularized. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed problematic wording and changed to "The reality of parapsychological phenomena and the scientific validity of parapsychological research is a matter of continued criticism." from "The scientific reality of..." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Concerning Levy's mention in Time magazine, It was referenced from the source right above it. I just formated the source and moved it 1 sentence down to source the entire paragraph. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Broke up overly long sentence and converted into 2 sentences. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed the part about Rhine's adoption of the term parapsychology, bulleted under #1 above. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions

When you say the sentence is unclear, what specifically about it needs clarifying? Is it the "others" part, or who the "some" in the scientific community is? VanTucky ^(talk) 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not specific and is poorly-worded, it might be better as just - "Parapsychology has been criticized by many scientists and psychologists." Tim Vickers 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

About the basic definition: I think something more like the study of paranormal psychological phenomena would be appropriate. Saying possible is imo unnecessary, as the intro goes on to point out that concrete evidence proving the phenomena exists has not occurred, and paranormal is disambiguated (same thing there). VanTucky ^(talk) 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Tim Vickers 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We've experienced disputes in the past over the definition of "Many". Some individuals believe that "many" is a vague POV term and frequently change it to "some". I fear that if we say that "Many scientists" without providing a general number, we might have the same problems in the future. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel like the notability and detailed nature of the criticism as outlined in the article basically makes the fact that there are many, rather than just a few, scientific critics a truism. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In general you can avoid the "many/some" argument by citing a leading proponent of any controversial view "Scientists such as Bob Smith say.." or "In a rebuttal of this view, the psychologist Pete Brown wrote that.." This makes a statement much less controversial and also reads better as it is more specific. Tim Vickers 23:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, There's no one specific notable scientist opponent of parapsychology or it's methods or conclusions. There are dozens that come to mind but we can't cite all of them. We need to just state that "some" scientists. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a handful of "strong" opponents however. Alcock is the notable leading scientist in opposition to parapsychology. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Alcock "the" notable leading scientist opposed to parapsychology? Why not Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, Blackmore, Shermer, Asimov, or Sagan? All of these people are/were strong critics of parapsychology and all of which are probably more notable. We can't limit it to one single person. We should either list a few of the MOST notable, say "some" or say "many". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He's the guy that keeps showing up in all these sources. Those other guys (as far as I've seen) don't show up half as much. Or even if you said "Scientists such as Holmes, Watson, and Moriarty", that'd be fine too. I don't know, Annalisa would probably know better than I. I'll skate on the idea that if you add up all the people who have ever said something bad about parapsychology, it probably counts up to the ambiguous "many". I only get concerned when the words "most scientists" are used. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the fact that Alcock appears in most of the referenced sources automatically means he should be "the notable leading scientist" on the issue while they are so many more notable scientists who fit the bill. I do BTW agree that "many scientists" is fine. I just hope it doesn't result in edit wars. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 4 is difficult. Here's the problem: the alternative view to the "interpretation" is all the criticisms that are in the criticism section (without rebuttal). It's difficult to gauge "how large these groups are in relation to the rest of the population in question". The population in question would be those familiar with the study. On one hand you have the researchers themselves and the other scientists who support the interpretation, and on the other hand you have those scientists who don't support the interpretation. I'm not sure how that would be worded in proportion when we don't even know how many are actually familiar with the study. We could say many scientists familiar with the studies support the interpretation and many don't, but that's not really imparting anything more useful than what is already there. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Tim figured this out for us. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FA Nomination

Does this article meet the criteria to be a Featured Article? I believe it probably does, nominating it for Featured Article might also bring some more editors to help improve it. I've added it for FA nomination here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parapsychology. Please add input and help progress the FA review to help it become a Featured Article ASAP. If you believe it's FA criteria then show your support by saying Support and then giving a reason. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite there, but I'm looking forward to input from others who have worked on FA articles before. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To Annalisa Ventola

Annalisa Ventola, You should probably refrain from making major edits like this one [[1]] without providing any info on the talk page about it prior to doing it or even leaving an edit summary. The article has just been promoted to GA status and the last thing we want is someone making major changes to it and igniting an edit war. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm shifting things around and tightening up the language for the sake of readability issues. If you have serious issues with any specific change, you are welcome to improve upon it. I'm sure that a consensus can be reached. The GA article tag still invites us to make improvements. That is what I am attempting to do. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While so far I have been fine with the changes and GA status doesn't entail static articles, I completely agree with WDM on this one. For an article that has been recognized as GA-quality and is not under the WP:BLP, nothing could so drastically important enough to not to wait for at least a nominal response. And imo, completely re-structuring and renaming that sub-section is not a minor change by even the broadest definition. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not say anything about minor changes above. Please do not put words in my mouth.

It was not appropriate to nominate this article for GA status when other editors expressed that they were not done working with it. I've said repeatedly that I wanted to work on the criticism section. I made an effort to do this for weeks in the draft state with WDM'a cooperation, only to find my requests for changes repeatedly ignored. The heading "Selection bias" was created without consensus, the new heading more accurately reflects what was there before...better yet, it actually describes the text underneath it. This article is not done. I'm not done. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As I just said, and you have pointed out, GA doesn't equal "don't touch". What it does mean is that the content was approved as being very well-written, so any major changes are not absolutely, immmediately vital. This isn't some stub needing drastic measures and bold editing. I feel this way irregardless of the status of the article, but obviously other, outside editors agree with me because of the approval. The point is Annalisa, whether GA or not, drastic, sweeping changes without reason are quite likely to be reverted without reason. So if you want stability and to see your changes take effect, then participate in what is fundamentally a collaborative process, not a solo one. We're not asking you to refrain from making changes, we're asking you to talk to us about your changes like a reasonable person. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of your sweeping generalizations. I forgot to leave an edit summary for ONE of my changes today. And being a relative newcomer to this article, you are not one to speak of the collaborative process here. You seem to have little regard for the processes that went into getting the article where it is today...or the roles that other editors played in constructing it and the draft proceeding it. Additionally, I am getting a little tired of your uncivil remarks, and I don't appreciate the taunting message that you placed on my talk page today. Unless you decide to reaquaint yourself with a few key policies here at Wikipedia, most especially WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL, I'm going to cease responding to your comments. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is, of course, your perogative whether you discuss anything. But this isn't just about one edit. I am not the one who brought up this issue, so labeling me a rude newbie isn't a response to the issue at hand. Asking for at least a simple edit summary on bold edits isn't rude or ludicrous. As to the charge of trying to own the article, for the third time now I remind you that you free to make any edits you please, irregardless of GA status. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that we've all been editing this article long enough to know what would or wouldn't cause potential disputes. If you plan to make an edit that you think may cause a dispute, please discuss the edit on the talk page prior to making it. This is the only way to avoid these arguments. Simply outline what the change is you plan to make and wait for a day or two for discussions prior to making it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before we put it up for GA, it's likely to get ripped apart by editors not even involved in the article currently. Now that it's up for FA status, it will probably undergo even more comprehensive changes. My feeling is that as long as the edits aren't really bad edits we need to relax and let the process happen. I'd like to tighten some things up myself but don't have the time right now to do anything worthwhile. I go with the WP:1RR myself, meaning that I'll try something on my own, but if it's not well received then I'm open to discussion. I feel that's a healthy interpretation of WP:BOLD --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's hard to keep up with a dozen new edits and determine what exactly the changers were. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that I agree with completely. I use the "history"'s diffs but they are so hard to read at times. Sometimes I get what the changes were, but I have to use the "find on page" feature of my browser just to see where they were. MediaWiki really needs to come up with a better way of following changes. I don't personally have the time to re-read the article constantly just to see if it still reads ok. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the only dispute right now is over whether it was okay for me to make a bunch of edits. Nobody is complaining about the actual content of what I did. Read over the criticism section. Like it? Great. Don't? Change it. This is the encylopedia that anyone can edit, so please don't waste my time by asking me to justify myself for...um...editing. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That was a section that I had raised concerns about previously. We changed it, together and in public, and now you've reverted it all. Since we actually discussed this beforehand, and since I explained my edits beforehand, would you please explain yours? Antelan ^talk 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we didn't change it together. WDM did. My requests for changes were promptly ignored. Want an explanation of what I did? Look at the page history. Look at the diffs. I made sure that paragraphs were coherent and about a single topic. I made word changes for clarification. I made sure that there was a clear distinction between concepts like 'experiments' and 'meta-analysis' (i.e. a meta-analysis is not an experiment). What I did not do was add or delete any sources, nor add or delete any of the general topics fo discussion. If I had, I probably would've discussed it here first. Again, if you have a problem with the criticism section, could we discuss your issues about specific changes, rather than the fact that I had the audacity to actually make some? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed my specific issues on WDM's version's talk page awhile back. I will kindly refer you there to see some very specific comments that are once again pertinent to the version you've created (title of the section, etc.). Antelan ^talk 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Was this about your heading on Selection Bias? If I remember correctly, NealParr, VanTucky, and I all opposed the heading, but WDM went and changed it to what you wanted anyway. If you want to revisit this issue, let's create an new subject line and discuss it. Perhaps a straw poll would be useful. Is there anything else you want to change? If so, go right ahead and do it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to realize that it's difficult for us to determine the changes once they are made, and to determine what actually changed. It helps everyone if you simply post what you're planning to change prior to changing it and get an idea of how we all feel. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's how to determine changes once they are made: First, (if you're on the talk page) scroll to the top of the page. Then click (with the left hand mouse button) the tab that says "article." When that page loads, click the tab that says "history." Then click the radio buttons of the two versions you want to compare. When you get the page -called a "diff" in Wikipedia speak- You can see the changes, because they will be in different colors. It's really easy once you get the hang of it- Wikimedia has been made pretty easy to use, although it still has some flaws.

It's good to edit here. That's what Wikipedia is about, making the articles better by editing them. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following it too. I'd like to see more descriptive edit summaries. Some of the recent changes have no summaries at all or has "doesn't change the meaning" as a summary or "like this better". Those don't really tell someone scanning the history what actual changes were made. Users are forced to look at the diffs to see what changes were made. I know, I'm guilty of it too, but there's a lot going on and it's hard to follow. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Those of you making these recent edits should probably be a little less bold and a little more careful. I've had to correct a few grammar mistakes since the newer edits were made. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky, please compose your comments off-line, tracking through a half-dozen after-thought edits of the same entry is annoying. It is hard enough to constructively track all of these comments without that.

I have no idea why you all are so anxious to get GA or Fa or whatever status it is when the article has just recently been given back to the public. I think you have added an unnecessary complexity to achieving stability here and the degree of your attack on Annalisa Ventola for just doing what editors are supposed to do seems to be more a reflection of your desire to get an award than to produce a stable article. I for one want to see what she has to say, as I expect she knows a little more about the subject than the rest of us. Tom Butler 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Annalisa, no one thinks it's not "okay for you to make a bunch of edits". It's about discussing the potentially controversial edits so other editors don't have to ramble through the history diffs trying to surmise what you were doing and why. That's all. And none of us are perfect, I'm certainly still working on that. As to the content issue in Criticism: yes, I agree about with changes to Selection Bias on structural grounds. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that my edits were not controversial. Nobody has complained about the actual edits that I made. That's because all I did was make the criticism section stronger and better using my expertise and my skills as a writer. Fundamentally, it's still the same criticism section, just clearer and more organized. Unless somebody has a specific complaint about the actual content of my contributions, this entire debate seems to be about whether or not it was okay for me to essentially do a copy edit job without seeking permission. I'm not going to work that way. If and when I decide to insert or delete something controvesial, it will be unambiguous, and it will be discussed on this talk page first. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that WDM disagrees with your edits, or at least finds them controversial. But once again, it's not about whether or not it's okay for you to make edits. It's about discussing them. But we're going in circles here. I'm not going to go on any further. Let's just move on, as I'm sure there other changes you're dying to make. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WDM hasn't specified any particular problems with my edits. When/if he does, I'll be happy to work with him to reach consensus. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with editing directly. The changes we've been making should not be controversial- for instance, the current article had reincarnation defined as survival of death. Such blaring mistakes should not need any prior notice of correction. I suggested this be changed before the draft went live, and the suggestion was ignored.

Further, the gradual changed we have been making are not hard to follow on the diffs. You don't have to go one diff at a time. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)