Talk:Parapsychology

Opening of article

The opening of this article is far too biassed. It seems to have been typed by people determined to write parapsychology off as a pseudo-science.Vorbee (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

By our book parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, just imagine creating an article about an area of research and not even explaining what the researchers claim. Meanwhile there's several sentences saying what others outside the area of research think about it. Biased and vandalism.--Amirgown (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Your "book" is open to editing though. So it sounds more like it's the opinion of a few people forcing their beliefs onto the policy of the encyclopedia. There's already several sentences saying what skeptics believe about it, but not even half a sentence about what the researchers claim (while stating that it's a claim) is allowed. Just the kind of stuff you would expect from Christian absolutists, not skeptics. Pretty sure there's a more well-known, important and central policy of Wikipedia that says you have to at least explain both points of view, even if one is incorrect.--Amirgown (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

We do have to explain all notable POVs, they just get described according to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vorbee and Amirgown: I agree that this article is savagely biased. Parapsychology comes under "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience" from WP:FRINGE Many of the problems the article has are caused by the fact that a lot of the material is cited by people who are not parapsychologists or even psychologists, but rather those in the physical sciences or professional skeptics. There is also a lot of stuff cited that is not peer reviewed but is opinion. A good start might be to work towards eliminating non peer reviewed stuff and opinion stuff. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ARBPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

lot of the material is cited by people who are not parapsychologists please see WP:FRINGE and even WP:PARITY. In this case, the opinion of a particular psychologist could be mentioned if notable enough, but as that persons' opinion, not as reflecting consensus. An indication of notability would be reviews of his work by third parties, which would be the ones we should reflect. I've noticed the same addition at another article and changed "found" to "wrote" to mitigate the issue, but it's possible that it doesn't deserve mention if there's no coverage by independent sources. To claim that his views changed the consensus of psychologists, we'd need an independent source too. —PaleoNeonate – 17:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Because the terms used by Wikipedians are defined intersubjectively and do not mean what you have stated above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Parapsychology is 100% WP:FRINGE, it is not an "alternative theoretical formulation". This is how WP:FRINGE has been consistently interpreted in this respect. If you don't believe me start a thread at WP:FTN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Survival hypothesis

Survival hypothesis links to here but is not mentioned yet. It should be, and not in "Modern era", because it was written about in the 19th century, s. Emil Mattiesen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Undo of recent revert

The reason I undid this revert is because, (a) as well as reverting for its stated reason it undid other edits that were useful e.g. re the citation by Smee. Although I do think the citations by Smee are a bit of a problem. i.e. why are we including citations written by a biologist in an article about psychology? I find your assertion that the work of one of the world's leading parapsychologists, who is professor of psychology at a university and has published in numerous reputable journals is a fringe view untenable. Moreover you also removed all mention of him and his work form the body of the article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The claim that he overturned the long-standing consensus is just too cocky, find other ways to express it. As it is stated, it's hybris. He is still WP:FRINGE by our book. Besides, this isn't an article in psychology, it is much more like occultism and esotericism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please do not simply continue to revert without arriving at a consensus on this page. Moreover you are reverting other edits that are not in question. The fact that, in your opinion, the claim is cocky or hubris has nothing to do with it. The statement is from a highly reputable, peer reviewed publication. Being as Cardeña is being published in as reputable a journal as American Psychologist his work does clearly not fall under WP:FRINGE, which says "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". While I will agree with you that parapsychology is often tarred with the same brush as occultism it is, once again, not your opinion that is relevant here. That papers on parapsychology are published in American Psychologist, which is the official peer reviewed academic journal of the American Psychological Association, clearly demonstrates that the academy considers parapsychology as a branch of psychology.

Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hogwash, see WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather than a broad and uncivil reply perhaps you could be more specific? Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Has somebody won Randi's million dollars? Guessed so. Parapsychologists say: we don't know what it works, we don't know what is made of, it has no practical applications, but once in a while we get significant results. I could throw the dice all day long and get significant results once in a while, it means nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Randi's prize is not relevant. What is relevant are peer reviewed scientific articles, like those I have cited. Please address exact edits and sources that you wish to contend rather than just stating your opinion. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

See Pseudoscience#Indicators of the possible presence of pseudoscience. What did parapsychology discover, except occasional significant results? Where is its smoking gun that the field is worth anything? Randi's prize has not been won because nobody has paranormal powers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the worth of a field is not determined by the number of papers ("[Cardeña] has published more than 250 journal articles and book chapters"). And quoting a definition from another encyclopedia is not how we do it here, especially not a definition that cannot be tested - how can you know that a "transfer of information or energy" "cannot be explained by known physical or biological mechanisms"? Not by trying to explain it and failing, because the failure could be because of your own stupidity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Got to agree with Tgeorgescu here - notwithstanding the Randi prize (which is largely a publicity thing anyway) - being an academic is not proof against holding WP:FRINGE positions, nor is being published occasionally. Parapsychology is widely seen, outside parapsychological circles as a WP:FRINGE discipline and as such, treating it as a legitimate science in the lede is a violation of WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Granted, Randi's million dollar challenge ended years ago, but parapsychology is clearly fringe. --tronvillain (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I heard, JREF is still open to grant the prize to select candidates, but no longer admits just anyone who is interested. Oh, no, it ended in 2015. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Still, there are a variety of prizes for evidence of the paranormal that still exist. --tronvillain (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, can you please state exactly which text you are referring to about the definition? I added a cited definition from a university textbook. This is an acceptable source. Re your question about how can I know? I don't know. It's not about if I know, or if you know, it's about relying on the research of experts. Thus we cite their work. If we want an opposing view we cite the work of other experts who disagree.

Simonm223, WP:FRINGE says "the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". This is designed to make sure that non experts are not deciding if or not a thing is fringe. This is why we cite experts within a given field and not people outside of it. If you think its fringe then find a citation from an expert that supports this view rather than just stating your opinion. This page cites a lot of people who are not experts in this field and a lot are skeptics and it has an undue emphasis on criticisms. You say being published occasionally doesn't mean its not fringe and Hob Gadling says the fact that he has so many papers published is irrelevant... He can't win either way.

My main point here is that I added cited information that was by experts who were published in mainstream, peer reviewed journals and in academically published books and it has been removed because of the opinions of wikipedia editors. This is not how we do things at wikipedia. Maybe parapsychology is fringe but this doesn't mean that cited information by experts in reliable sources can just be removed. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"I added a cited definition from a university textbook" - An encyclopedia that just quotes the definition from another encyclopedia is a bad one. Usually we do not use tertiary sources, but secondary ones.

"your question about how can I know?" - I did not use "you" referring to you specifically, but in the sense of "a person". The definition in question is a stupid one because it is not practically applicable. If WP takes it at face value, WP embraces the parapsychologists' assumption that they are smart enough to say "I cannot explain this, therefore this cannot be explained".

When I say "[Cardeña] has published more than 250 journal articles and book chapters" is not relevant, I mean it is bad style to say that in the article. It sounds like boasting - no, it is boasting. Counting papers is an extremely silly way of deciding a scientific question. What is in the papers matters. Do the papers prove anything? Are they well made? We can quote secondary sources talking about that. Also, why pick Cardeña for this treatment and not any other parapsychologist? What's special about him? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

has been removed because of the opinions of wikipedia editors More per policies than editor opinions. —PaleoNeonate – 17:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry yes, it was an encyclopedia not a text book. However (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources) "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited". I thought it was better to have a cited definition from an academic source rather than a catch all definition that is widely variant from the academic sources. Do you disagree?

Re "transfer of information or energy that cannot be explained by known physical or biological mechanism". I don't know how they arrived at this definition. But it's not my job here to know that. It's my job to cite a reputable, academic source, which is what I did. However if you want me to speculate, oh wait, talk pages aren't for discussions about the topic...

Maybe it's bad style to say "Cardeña has published more than 250 journal articles and book chapters" but that doesn't mean that all the information about him in the article should just be removed. BTW that came from his wikipedia page so that's not my bad style its another editor's. I was trying to add some info about him to contextualise the quote by him I included, not prove any point. Seems like a good thing to do. If you don't think the style is good then please edit it. I did this because I was citing one of his papers specifically. It is a meta study, commenting on the state of the field in general, this year. So it's a current and relevant wide ranging survey of the field published by an extremely reputable journal this year. That's why I chose it. What is in the paper that matters? Well only that he said, in a peer reviewed reputable journal that "The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines". Let me repeat that. He is saying, in a peer reviewed, reputable journal, in up to date article, which is by an expert with a long history of publishing in this exact subject matter, who is presently employed at a reputable institution, that there is evidence of psi effects, seems pretty important to me. Just what everyone has been asking for really. Good solid academic evidence. Yet it was also just deleted from the article completely on the basis of an editor's opinion. This is exactly why I say this article is biased. Morgan Leigh | Talk 13:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean it could also be read as a scathing rebuke of psychology, which, considering the Replication Crisis, might not be entirely un-earned. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

But joking aside, WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:PROFRINGE still very much apply. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It could totally be read as a critique of psychology. But the article expands on that statement and makes it clear that that is not what he is saying. He explains how parapsychology gets results at the same rates of statistical significance as other fields and still gets derided. I challenge you to read Cardeña's paper and see if you still think its an extraordinary claim. But even if it is the breadth of his review is amazing. He does cite multiple sources which is what WP:EXTRAORDINARY asks for "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

What the abstract says is "The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines", but what does the actual article say and on what page does it say it? --tronvillain (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The abstract is part of the paper. I put a direct quote from the paper with a page number. I would have put more from the paper but considering I only put one quote and this resulted in every single edit I made, including biographical information about the author, getting reverted I didn't get a chance to do that yet.Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, one psychologist opining that evidence for psychic powers is strong/significant/should be recognized does not meet WP:EXTRAORDINARY for purposes of overturning the longstanding majority scientific consensus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, and we'd need an independent reliable source claiming that, —PaleoNeonate – 17:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not just one psychologist trying to overturn a long held consensus. This paper is a meta review, which means it reviews meta analyses, which is an effective way to review a field. In this case he reviews 20 meta analyses. He is actually showing what the current consensus is. He starts off by examining the exact question of why people think parapsychology is not credible and shows how the field has a lot of good science that has yielded good results yet still gets derided. Even French (French, C. (2001). Weird science at Goldsmiths. Skeptic, 14, 7– 8.) who is a skeptic says “Most psychologists could reasonably be described as uninformed skeptics, a minority could reasonably be described as prejudiced bigots where the paranormal is concerned”. Cardeña is a reliable source. American Psychologist is a reputable, peer reviewed journal.

@Morgan Leigh: You're begging the question that parapsychology would be psychology. The current consensus in epistemology is that science cannot study the supernatural: science is agnostic about God, angels and spirits. Here is more:

“ I think Kitchen comes up so often in these sorts of discussions because he's a serious, credible scholar on Egypt but super-maximalist on ancient Israel and the Bible. It's like a trained rocket scientist opposing evolution -- the rhetorical gambit used is to transfer credibility from one field onto another one. That and his avoidance of full-blown Young-Earth-Creationism can create an impression that his works on the Bible are somehow mainstream. Alephb (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC) ”

I am not begging the question. Parapsychology is psychology. The American Psychological Association thinks it is (https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/psyccritiques-spotlight/issue-11.aspx) The wikipedia psychology project thinks it is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_psychology). Many universities who do parapsychology research think it is. Parapsychology is not about God, angels or spirits. Parapsychology is "the study of purported psi phenomena using the scientific method," (Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), p664.). The present definition in the lede of this article is at odds with the definition of the field given by actual experts. I tried to update the definition with a cited source but it got reverted... Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

In general, respectable scientific journals don't publish paranormal research, which is precisely why parapsychologists complain they're like Galileo facing Inquisition. See e.g. [1]: parapsychologists as martyred by peer-review. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And yet when I tried to update this article with good research published in a peer reviewed, respectable journal you reverted it. You can't have it both ways. The problem here is not one of trying to overturn a consensus but of addressing bias. It is hard for us to adjust when things we have long held to be true have changed. Germ theory was proposed by Marcus von Plenciz in 1762 but "Such views were held in disdain, however, and Galen's miasma theory remained dominant among scientists and doctors." Germ_theory_of_disease It wasn't until the late 1800s, when technology caught up with the theory that it was accepted. Think how many people died in the mean time. That is over 100 years until people were able to get over their prejudices and come to terms with facts. I am hoping to be able to make some progress in bringing this article into line with actual science and ridding it of the many non peer reviewed, non expert opinions that are currently being used to substantiate unwarranted prejudiced and bias in less time than that.

The paper you cited gets to the core of the problem. "showing an interest in parapsychology is hazardous to one’s professional health, including the almost nonexistent funding opportunities, the hurdles in getting an academic job or, having obtained it, in advancing, or the constant swaying to avoid the constant, and most often uninformed and groundless, barrage of critical darts. There are already general discussions on the intellectual suppression of identified groups and alternative positions by those with power and a vested interest (e.g., Martin, Baker, Manwell, & Pugh 1986), including the specific case of parapsychology (e.g., Hess 1992, McClenon 1984)." Moreover he goes on to say "a quaint version of the idea that publishing parapsychology might bring about terrible events is exemplified by the bombastic opinion of cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, who wrote that a peer-reviewed set of studies finding support for precognition (Bem 2011) would have implications that “would necessarily send all of science as we know it crashing to the ground . . . [and] spell the end of science as we know it” (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/06/the-esp-study-when-science-goes-psychic/a-cutoff-for-craziness). He also remarked that psi phenomena would go against the “laws of physics” despite not being a physicist, and called parapsychology researchers “crackpots” (the itch to insult may be even more peremptory than that to censor). In contrast, actual physicists including University of London cosmologist Bernard Carr and Lawrence Livermore Lab physicist Henry Stapp have developed models that accommodate psi phenomena within physics, with neither of them claiming that if their proposals are right science will “go crashing in flames” (cf. Kelly, Crabtree, & Marshall 2015). In their support of research on parapsychology, they have followed physicists of the stature of Bohm, Bohr, Einstein, Planck, and Pauli, who either proposed physics models of psi phenomena or were at the very least open to its scientific inquiry."

I shall reiterate that we should be addressing my various edits instead of only airing your opinions that parapsychology is bogus in response to cited sources. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to remind you that this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions as you have been warned about that. By comparing parapsychology with germ theory you make a big policy mistake, which is explained at WP:BALL. Let's say that there is a correlation between electricity consumption in Bijlmer and the flow rate of Niagara Falls. What does that prove? Nothing, I guess. It's just a spurious statistical correlation having no plausible causal mechanism. So, we have causal claims that defy everything else from sciences, and causal claims which don't defy most of established science. See organized skepticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in my comments that comes under WP:BALL. "Individual scheduled or expected future events" - Nope. "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" - Nope. "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history"" - Nope. "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors" - Nope. But I guess you are referring to "Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." I have not made any such projection in the article. I have made an analogy on the talk page in a discussion about why the article should be edited. You are grasping at straws rather than addressing my actual edits. I note you have also edited my talk page with the discretionary sanctions thing. Why are you trying so hard to find a reason to prevent my edits with policy other than addressing the actual edits? Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"I'm the bad guy?" he asks in disbelief. From Falling Down. You are acting against the WP:RULES, namely trying to undo the WP:FRINGE status of parapsychology. No conscientious editor will allow you to succeed. The germ theory can be seen as valid only in retrospect: Plenciz's contemporaries lacked evidence for the existence of germs. Once the evidence became available, the germ theory won. Not before that! All parapsychology has are correlations. No plausible causal mechanism and no smoking gun. Perhaps I did not made myself clear enough: science is organized skepticism. If he/she does not convince the skeptics, the scientist has failed. Einstein did not bicker about scientific skepticism: he was not a maverick, but became one of the leaders of mainstream science (i.e. after evidence for his theories became available, before that he was popular in world press, but widely doubted among scientists). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to undo the fringe status of parapsychology. I am trying to add text cited by peer reviewed articles. I edited to achieve a more neutral tone. You are the one who removed cited information. From WP:PRESERVE "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You're the only one here who fails to understand the points made about WP:FRINGE, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY in respect to your past edits. And you certainly don't understand why our article is already compliant with WP:NPOV. "Biased" is not an argument: we're biased for mainstream science (aka organized skepticism) and we're proud of it, this is Wikipedia! Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a consensus about the inclusion of {{Psychology sidebar}} in the article? If yes, where should the sidebar be placed? I removed it after reviewing this discussion and noting that the sidebar has no mention of parapsychology. I was reverted (diff) with spurious claims about Index of psychology articles and Portal:Psychology (particularly spurious due to WP:OSE). Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream psychologists regard parapsychology with disdain. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd remove it, if the article is not in the sidebar (and I see no good reason it should be despite the similar names) the sidebar should not be in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

We can count me as thinking the sidebar should be removed and Morgan Leigh as thinking it should be kept. My very quick read of this section suggests that the others who have commented here also favor removal, although some of the comments are unclear to me. Pings in case I have misread the situation: Alephb + Hob Gadling + LuckyLouie + PaleoNeonate + Simonm223 + Tronvillain. Does anyone other than Morgan Leigh believe the sidebar belongs in this article? Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon/One against many. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Clearly I'm in favour of removing it given that I did once already. Thanks to Morgan Leigh for pointing out some other articles and a portal that may need some attention. Being on the psychology portal is meaningless to the discussion though - the vast majority of articles there also don't have a psychology sidebar. Similarly, being in the index of psychology articles also doesn't establish a need for the sidebar given that it's as broad as "Articles related to psychology." --tronvillain (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly more concerned about WP:PROFRINGE content being inserted into the lede but yeah. The psychology sidebar doesn't belong on a page about supernatural beliefs, even if they're supernatural beliefs that are often held by psychologists. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Parapsychology is not a supernatural belief. It is the scientific study of psi phenomena. "Parapsychology can be defined as the study of purported psi phenomena using the scientific method" - Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. "A branch of psychology that studies a group of phenomena collectively known as psi, a term referring to the transfer of information or energy that cannot be explained by known physical or biological mechanisms" - Kihlstrom, J. (2000). Parapsychology. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 43-46). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association." "Parapsychology is defined as ‘the scientific study of the capacity attributed to some individuals to interact with their environment by means other than the recognised sensorimotor channels’." https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/research-overview/ (University of Edinburgh). "Parapsychology is the scientific and scholarly study of three kinds of unusual events (ESP, mind-matter interaction, and survival), which are associated with human experience. The existence of these phenomena suggest that the strict subjective/objective dichotomy proposed by the old paradigm (see below) may not be quite so clear-cut as once thought. Instead, these phenomena may be part of a spectrum of what is possible, with some events and experiences occasionally falling between purely subjective and purely objective. We call such phenomena "anomalous" because they are difficult to explain within current scientific models." - "https://parapsych.org/articles/36/76/what_is_parapsychology.aspx", "The term parapsychology refers to the scientific study of certain paranormal phenomena, referred to as "Psi" phenomena." - "http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Parapsychology (cur | prev) Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:01, 5 October 2018‎ Morgan Leigh (UTC)

The existing definition is essentially equivalent to those definitions - it's just more explicit and using less jargon. --tronvillain (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Except it doesn't mention science or psi once despite these sources doing so. I have provided reliable sources that say its science (see below about the reliability of these sources) so please explain why we can't put the terms science or psi in the definition?Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Parapsychology topics are not included in the psychology sidebar for obvious reasons; the sidebar may therefore also be misplaced on this article. Although an encyclopedia covers more than short definitions, sometimes a dictionary definition also helps: "n: phenomena that appear to contradict physical laws and suggest the possibility of causation by mental processes [syn: {psychic phenomena}, {psychic phenomenon}]" (Wordnet). —PaleoNeonate – 18:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

So why is parapsychology on the psychology project page? They went to all the trouble of making it a featured article in psychology and everything... Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

A portal isn't a project, and becoming a featured article at some point has no necessary connection to a project. Literally all this establishes is that someone tagged the page as "of interest to Wikiproject Psychology." It's also tagged as being of interest to Wikiprojects Occult and Paranormal. --12:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(edit conflict)Parapsychology is a pseudo-scientific attempt to study supposed supernatural phenomena, as such it is a supernatural belief system. The issue here is that literally all the other engaged editors are telling you that we can't categorize Parapsychology as a science on the basis of the evidence you provided, and you're refusing to hear that. As for why it's a featured article on the psychology project page? Well, in my case, it's because I didn't know that attempt was being made, otherwise I would have opposed it. But a past consensus decision never requires future consensus makes the same decision. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not that I am not hearing you. I am hearing you. You are all stating your opinions most vociferously. But they are just opinions. And I am citing sources. It's that you are failing to recognise when I cite reliable sources to counter your, and others', uncited, biased opinions. I just gave you five sources that say parapsychology is a science and you aren't hearing that. I've got more... Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources are WP:FRINGE and do not pass WP:EXTRAORDINARY: your sources cannot overturn the long-standing consensus that parapsychology is bunk. That has to change in real world before it changes inside Wikipedia. And the attempt to redefine "supernatural" as "psi" is simply pathetic. E.g. all I could find on Google Books for the keywords "martini coon mitterer parapsychology" is The parapsychologist's lament by Alcock, J.E. (2010). Bibliography: Ray Hyman, Parapsychology Achilles Heel: Persistent Inconsistency, pp. 45-46 in Stanley Krippner and Harris L. Friedman, Debating Psychic Experience, Praeger, 2010. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources meet WP:RS as follows:

Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. This source is a peer reviewed article form an academic journal. See American_Psychologist. It is a secondary source (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper.") as it reviews other research.

Kihlstrom, J. (2000). Parapsychology. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 43-46). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. This source is an encyclopedia. (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited.) It is published by the American Psychological Association, which is, "the largest scientific and professional organization of psychologists in the United States" See American_Psychological_Association

https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/research-overview/ (University of Edinburgh) This source is from a university research institute at University of Edinburgh, which is "ranked 18th in the world by the 2019 QS World University Rankings. (Best universities in Europe 2018". Times Higher Education.)

https://parapsych.org/articles/36/76/what_is_parapsychology.aspx This source is from The Parapsychological Association which is, "an international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of psi (or 'psychic') experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition. The primary objective of the PA is to achieve a scientific understanding of these experiences. First established in 1957, the PA has been an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since 1969." The fact that it is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science who are the publishers of Science means it is a reputable science based professional organisation akin to the American Psychological Association.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Parapsychology This source is an encyclopedia. (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited.)

Please explain how you can defend your position that these sources are not reliable. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS has been satisfied—one editor wants to include the sidebar and many don't. The issue was discussed at WP:NPOVN with no support for the sidebar. For Wikipedia, that means the issue is resolved. Try raising the matter again in 12 months. There is no requirement that everyone be happy with the result of a disagreement and there is no need to spend more time debating. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the sidebar. I'm talking about the definition in the lede. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_World_Encyclopedia implies that Morgan is making pathetic jokes about WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok so you have a problem with the New World Encyclopedia. But you you have done an interesting thing here. New World Encyclopedia is in the same category as rational wiki. It's an online wiki that anyone can edit that comes from a particular ideological space. Why should rationwiki be taken any more seriously than New World Encyclopedia? Regardless of this that leaves four other sources. What's wrong with them?

You'll notice that no one's attempting to use RationalWiki as a source in the article. Anyway, the New World Encyclopedia entry was originally copied from Wikipedia in 2007 (check its history) - it is in no sense a credible source. --tronvillain (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Morgan Leigh. The problem is, you are suggesting that non-WP:FRIND sources (and a dictionary definition with no context) be used to contradict a preponderance of independent reliable sources that have analyzed the subject in depth and from arm's length. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie The problem is that I have provided peer reviewed sources that don't agree with editors' preconceptions. Please explain how each of the sources I have cited do not comply with WP:RS or how they could be described as WP:FRIND. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Disputes are common at Wikipedia. The only way an argument can be resolved is for people to stop responding so the issue fades away. We may all be wrong, but that's the way it works, sorry. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually the way to resolve disputes is to use the dispute resolution process, not to just throw our hands up in horror and walk away. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to bite:

• Cardeña, E. (2018). -- Fails WP:Independent source since this is a WP:FRINGE subjection. See WP:FRIND.
• Kihlstrom, J. (2000). Parapsychology. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 43-46). -- I need to read this one. I might try WP:Resource Request. Do you have a quote?
• https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/research-overview/ -- wordpress.com self-published source by a WP:FRINGE supporter.
• https://parapsych.org/articles/36/76/what_is_parapsychology.aspx -- Total WP:FRINGE source. Doesn't even pretend to be impartial.
• http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Parapsychology -- Not reputable. Biased source with a goal of promoting pseudoscience. See [2].

Try again. jps (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Cardeña's article, is a peer reviewed article from American Psychologist. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal's 2016 impact factor is 6.681, ranking it 7th out of 128 journals in the category "Psychology, Multidisciplinary." See - American_Psychologist There is no conceivable way this can be considered a fringe journal. Incredibly we as wikipedia editors do not get to choose to cite some articles from a given journal but not others. A journal is either a reliable source or it isn't. American Psychologist is presently cited a total of five times over at the psychology article. I'd love to see what would happen if you went over to that article and removed those citations saying its a fringe journal.

Kihlstrom, do I have a quote for what? I already quoted the definition from it.

The Koestler Unit is from a page at The University of Edinburgh. It has the University of Edinburgh logo right at the top of the page. Pages at universities are ipso facto not self published. This page meets none of the criteria at Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works. If you think it does please say exactly which ones.

The Parapsychological Association does not meet the criteria for fringe, which says "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The association represents it's field. The fact that it is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science means it is regarded as scientific by the wider community.

I'd like to remind you to that it is required of wikipedia editors to be polite. Goading editors is not polite. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you have just demonstrated an inability to work in this subject with the above commentary which is essentially WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As this is under discretionary sanctions, I am inclined to say that someone should report you to WP:AE. A topic ban might be appropriate. jps (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the Koestler Unit is not a page at the University of Edinburgh. The Alzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre has a university page and the Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology (CCACE) has a university page, but the Koestler Parapsychology Unit has a Wordpress page and not a university page. --tronvillain (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct, Cardeña cannot be at the same time right that parapsychology is mainstream science and that parapsychologists get martyred by peer-reviewers. He cannot eat his cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Recently reverted edits

"However in 2014 nearly one hundred academics signed a statement to the effect that they were convinced that the case for psi phenomena had already been made."

This is a hallmark of pseudoscience. Creationists, anti-relativists, and climate change deniers use such signed lists. So, this sentence alone should make anybody suspicious of parapsychology even without further knowledge of the rookie mistakes that have been made there, such as multiple testing. But those lists should not be mentioned in the article because their pseudoscientific character is not obvious to the naive reader. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I contend that you are removing information from a cited source based on your opinion. Because it is your opinion that this is a hallmark of pseudoscience does not alter the fact that is an objectively true thing that actually happened and that is relevant to the article and that has a cited source. It is not our job as editors to decide what a hypothetical naive reader might or might not understand. We should provide all the information from cited sources that we can find and leave it up to the reader from there on. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That is quite a cheap line of reasoning. I could easily turn it around and say that you select specific things from the available literature, based on your opinion. So, your reasoning cancels with equal reasoning on the other scale, and you are where you started.

Actually, we do have to choose which parts are relevant for the article. To do so, we need to know what we are talking about. See WP:CIR. You call that knowledge "opinion". Probably you call your own opinions "knowledge".

"It is not our job as editors" - Yes, that is exactly our job as editors. We need to write in a way that readers understand the information we give them. If a sentence is apt to give the reader a wrong impression, we should not use that sentence. See WP:AUDIENCE says, "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible."

"We should provide all the information from cited sources that we can find" - Bullshit. If that were the case, all articles would be thousands of times longer than they are. We have to select content, we have to choose the important stuff and drop the unimportant stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the recent edits apparently changed a quote from "most" to "many" - changing words in quotes from the original text is never acceptable. --tronvillain (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that was quote. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

An edit summary was left asking, So if there aren't enough citations its "fail to meet extraordinary claim" but if there are many citations its massive undue weight? Dumping in lots of citations to parapsychologists and parapsychology sources claiming that psi is real is actually WP:UNDUE and not sufficient to overturn the longstanding consensus of independent sources that identify parapsychology as a pseudoscience. Sorry you feel that people are gaming the system against you, but that's not the case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Utts, is a statistician, published in a peer reviewed journal i.e. Statistical Science. Surely you have no objection to this source?

The rest are psychologists published in peer reviewed journals. Unless you can establish that these sources do not meet the criterion of reliable sources you can not reasonably remove them. You can contend that a thing is pseudoscience, but how does it prove it is not? By publishing in peer reviewed journals. If you want to not allow papers to be cited because you think they are pseudoscience, but they are published in reliable sources, you are second guessing the academy and censoring wikipedia. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so here's the issue with Parapsychological meta-analyses: they're only as good as their data sets. If the studies they're based on are garbage, either because they're god-of-the-gaps type studies like "psychically influencing a RNG to be slightly less random than expected" or because they had flawed experimental design and were subsequently non-replicated, the meta-analysis becomes more of a measure of the belief of parapsychologists that they had been successful than a measure of the actual success of experiments. So I get that it's very popular for fans of the Psi myth to cite meta-analyses, but until those analyses are derived from high-quality and replicable experiments, they're going to remain junk studies, mathematically interesting but of no real-world relevance.Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. However I reiterate that this is your opinion. You have not established that the sources I am citing are not reliable. I assert that they are. Moreover the very same journals they are published in are cited to support the sentence "Parapsychology has been criticised for continuing investigation despite being unable to provide convincing evidence for the existence of any psychic phenomena after more than a century of research" i.e. Blitz, David (1991). "The line of demarcation between science and nonscience: The case of psychoanalysis and parapsychology". New Ideas in Psychology. 9 (2): 163–170 and Bunge, Mario (1991). "A skeptic's beliefs and disbeliefs". New Ideas in Psychology. 9 (2): 131–149 are in the same journal as Beloff's. And Hyman, R. "Parapsychological research: A tutorial review and critical appraisal" (PDF). Retrieved 20 September 2008 is from Proceedings of the IEEE Volume: 74 Issue: 6 which is the same journal as Hastings. A journal is either reliable or not. One cannot cherry pick articles. To do so is to contend that one knows better than the editors of an academic journal what constitutes science and what does not. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It's about WP:RS/AC and WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Published by a bona fide academic in a bona fide journal does not mean it isn't WP:FRINGE. Everyone can write fringe stuff. According to Cardeña parapsychology is being persecuted by the mainstream. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if something is fringe it doesn't mean you can just exclude it from the article. I refer you to WP:PARITY which says "Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources." Ergo if there is a claim made against parapsychology and it has two sources then two sources should be included with the other view. This is absolutely not the case in this article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:RS/AC applies because I haven't cited any sources that claim a majority view for parapsychology. Re WP:MAINSTREAM, it says "In many debates, the most popular view is different from the scholarly or scientific view. In such cases, Wikipedia simply depends on the most reliable sources to verify content, and Wikipedia relies on vetted academic sources to determine what the mainstream understanding of a topic is." The exact same sources I have cited are already in the article to support skeptical statements. How can you say these are not reliable sources when they defend it? Re WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." If these sources are good enough for criticism of parapsychology why are they not good enough to support it? Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the claim "Supernatural (aka psi) phenomena have been shown with the same certainty as the existence of electrons", that would have been front-page news in all newspapers from all countries. It wasn't. That's how we know. See WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It would be bigger news than Einstein was in his own time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather than answering my question you have made a spurious statement. I have never made such a claim, nor cited one. Please answer my question: If these sources are good enough for criticism of parapsychology why are they not good enough to support it? Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@MorganLeigh: here is your answer. In Wikipedia, reporting on levels of acceptance isn't quote-mining articles published by advocates in scholarly sources to defend marginal ideas (i.e. those long established by the majority as fringe or pseudoscientific) or make them sound like they have been unfairly treated or are now gaining significant support. Peer reviewed journals publish fringe ideas by credentialed individuals all the time: advocates who are biologists have published supportive papers on Bigfoot and Cryptozoology, advocates who are psychiatrists and psychlogists have published articles supportive of Reincarnation, advocates who are physicists have have published articles supportive of UFO conspiracy theories. Hell, dozens and dozens of papers supportive of Transcendental Meditation have shown up in peer reviewed journals thanks to its well organized advocacy. In other words, "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community." To help determine acceptance, we focus on scholarship published by independent and objective parties rather than by advocates. I hope this helps you understand why so many experienced editors are getting frustrated with your efforts to "balance" the parapsychology article. Also, I urge you to read WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE for why your actions could result in sanctions or blocks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. Likewise reporting on levels of acceptance isn't quote-mining articles published by critics in scholarly sources to criticise marginal ideas while excluding those who defend them. I refer you to reporting on levels of acceptance "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." This does not mean one can simply refuse to include the opinions of those in "the relevant academic field" which are published in reliable sources, especially when voices criticising the field from the exact same journals and academic presses have been included. Moreover at present the criticism of this field in this article comes from those outside of it. Why not include criticism from inside the field, which is surely much more relevant, as WP:FRINGE requires? I also note that cited sources supporting parapsychology from academics outside the field (which seems to be what you think independent means) i.e. mathematicians and statisticians were removed. If a field is to move from superstition to science it must publish its results in peer reviewed publications. If you never allow work cited in such publications any space to be included you are upholding a bias and not accepting that a field can improve. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Independent in this case means "not a parapsychologist". That would leave out Jessica Utts, as well as Lance Storm, Arthur Hastings, Patrizio Tressoldi, John Beloff, Stephen Braude and Etzel Cardeña. I think anyone can see they are definitely not objective regarding parapsychology. Also, I think you may have some novel interpretations of the WP:FRINGE guideline. It certainly does not advise us to look to marginalized fringe science and pseudoscience to provide objective information about itself. Put another way, you wouldn't use the opinion of a used car salesman to determine if a certain make and model of car on his lot was dependable, you'd seek a consumer product information service or an independent garage, or someone else who is not connected to the business.- LuckyLouie (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that anyone who is in any way associated with parapsychology just cannot be trusted. This indicates your bias. To contextualise this, consider if I tried to argue that a physicist was not an independent source on physics. Ludicrous right? Why is it different for parapsychology? I posit you will argue something like, because it is "marginalized fringe science and pseudoscience". Wikipedia:Independent sources says "There are many instances of biased coverage by journalists, academics, and critics. Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance.".

You say "I think anyone can see they are definitely not objective", but according to WP:BIASED "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Which leads to WP:PARITY. Once again we are back at, if a source is good enough for criticism it is good enough for defense.

I have offered a compromise on sources, which no one has accepted, it seems nothing other than a complete acceptance of your views will do. We seem to be at an impasse. I remind you that I have never expressed any opinion,(because my opinion has nothing to do with it) as to the veracity or otherwise of the claims of parapsychology. I have only tried to add reliable sources. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

By "compromise", if you mean this edit, I think you know from reading the entire chapter (especially the final paragraph) that you have taken Hyman's quote dreadfully out of context. That isn't a compromise, that's misrepresenting a source to create a false balance. Also I think you have a mistaken idea of what WP:OR is. As editors we are tasked with evaluating the suitability of sources with an eye to clearly stating the relationship of fringe vs. mainstream ideas. Which is why we can't make a one-to-one comparison of parapsychologists to physicists. For example, there would be no need to assure that a physicist was an independent source if they were being used on Wikipedia to cite a mundane concept such as the laws of thermodynamics. But if the concept was quantum healing, certainly we'd want to evaluate the source to assure weight to the mainstream view. Yes, we seem to be at an impasse. And WP:EXHAUSTION is setting in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

First I'd like to thank you for engaging with me in a being polite and well reasoned way.

By compromise I am referring to here where Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical" was proposed as a source for criticism of parapsychology. I agreed to that source but my proposed source for balance was not agreed on. So I offered to find another source. No one even responded to this offer of compromise. I agree with what you say about physicists making claims with evidence not supported by most other physicists needing corroborating evidence. But that doesn't mean we would refuse to even include good, peer reviewed sources from other physicists when doing so.

I don't see how that quote is out of context. It is in a chapter about evaluating parapsychology. It is a relevant quote. In fact this quote forms part of the basis for his critique so it is quite relevant. When an academic writes good research they ideally strive to be fair. To this end they mention things that might not agree with their conclusions. That doesn't make those things any less true or citable. In law, if the prosecution finds evidence that supports the defense's case they have to hand it over to the defense. Its the same principle. The lede at present is hopelessly biased. Some WP:PARITY is required. You think this is exhausting? Try getting a PhD. This is easy in comparison. :) Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The lede is biased for mainstream science. Wikipedia is biased for mainstream science. Don't fight against this, you stand no chance of winning, see WP:SNOW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"No powerful confirming data at all"

Here's a quote that I thought I had put into this article, but I actually put in another one, that may help with establishing the mainstream position on parapsychology:

• Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F. (eds.), Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, Some of the worst examples of confirmation bias are in research on parapsychology ... Arguably, there is a whole field here with no powerful confirming data at all. But people want to believe, and so they find ways to believe.

Sternberg and the two other editors are all former Presidents of the American Psychological Association. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a good citation. For balance I suggest Braude, S.E. (2007) The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, University of Chicago Press, 9780226071527, P xvii "But in fact, those who sarcastically dismiss parapsychology typically know little. They haven’t carefully studied the data or issues for themselves.". Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That is the exact same thing astrologers say about astrology nonbelievers. And theologians about atheists. And conspiracy theorists about their detractors. And they are all wrong. Again, you want us to include general bullshit reasoning that can be used to defend any arbitrary thing. People do not believe in elves/Santa/homeopathy/dowsing/recovered memories? That's just because they do not know enough. Works just the same in every case.

"For balance"? See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes we do. WP:PARITY Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You should read that properly Morgan. It doesn't say what you think it does. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Can please explain why you think it doesn't as it seems pretty clear to me? Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It means that we don't use poor sources like those you suggest, to falsely contradict good sources. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is that if I am citing the same journals as are already sited in the article they are poor sources? Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I cannot, because you are not making any sense. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 12:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and they should generally be considered unreliable. - this would also apply to fringe publications on otherwise reputable academic presses; academic presses are not necessarily peer reviewed at all. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok let me be super clear. Yes fringe journals exist. However that is not what we are talking about here. Pigliucci is cited in the lede in a book from The University of Chicago Press, Braude's book is also published by The University of Chicago Press. Blitz is cited in the lede from New Ideas in Psychology, Beloff is also from New Ideas in Psychology. Hyman is cited in the lede from Proceedings of IEEE, Hastings is also published in Proceedings of IEEE. In each of these cases only sources from a particular journal or academic press that are skeptical of parapsychology are alleged to be reliable sources. Sources that are supportive from the exact same journals or academic press are alleged to be not reliable. Please explain how you can cherry pick from a source. A journal is either reliable and peer reviewed or not. An academic publisher is either reliable or not. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Makes you wonder why people have developed telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, the internet, while it would have been less expensive to use psychics? Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Instead of answering my question you have made a sarcastic remark. Please answer the question: If these sources are good enough for criticism of parapsychology why are they not good enough to support it? Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"Publisher is reliable" and "the article isn't fringe" are two different matters. Not everything published with peer-review in respectable journals is true. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree that not everything published in peer reviewed articles is good quality research. Academic publishing is a parlous state at present. But that is outside our scope. As wikipedia editors don't get to decide what's true and what's not. We just have to stick to wikipedia's policies. If the publisher is reliable we can cite the source. Unless anybody can say why these sources should not be cited I am going to put them back into the article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

We have to stick to Wikipedia's policies, I agree. However, you're the only one not getting the idea that the way you're acting you're heading towards a topic ban. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

"wikipedia editors don't get to decide what's true and what's not" Yes. But Wikipedia editors get to decide which parts of acceptable sources to quote and which parts not to quote. As I said before (in a contribution you ignored), we cannot quote everything and we have to choose what to take and what to refuse.

The quote you used in one of your reverted edits, saying that critics of parapsychology don't know what they are talking about, is

• plainly false,
• stupid reasoning that only appeals to gullible simpletons who swallow any reasoning that points in the direction they like,
• a common tactic of crackpots of all stripes.

Thus, we should choose not to use it. As I said before, competence is required: WP:CIR. The choice of things to quote from the available sources is where that competence comes into play. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This is becoming a colossal waste of time. Who wants to go to WP:AN and request a community-imposed topic ban? I would, but I am a bit swamped with real-world work. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to reach some kind of agreement on this instead of just going around in circles. As I said in the first instance, I have no problem with the quote from Sternberg. However you have a problem with my source. So if you want to go ahead and put Sternberg in the article I will find a different source than Braude to provide a balance view. I will discuss whatever source I can come up with here before adding it. This is not to say I don't think Braude is reliable. Just that I want to reach a compromise so we can move forward. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that it is ok to cherry pick quotes from sources. Moreover you began by saying editors don't get to decide what's true and what's not in reliable sources but then immediately went on to do exactly that. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• This really needs to stop Morgan Leigh you need to have a look at WP:1AM and WP:TEND - because your insistence on inserting fringe sources on the several-times refuted grounds that they published their hokum in a Psychology journal is getting to be tiresome. If you don't give this line of complaint a rest, you will likely be heading to WP:AN and considering how many editors have weighed in here it's probably not going to go well for you. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

None of you have been able to answer the question as to why it is that sources that are good enough to refute are not good enough to defend, other than to say that you think they are wrong. Yet I have offered a compromise and am trying to meet you half way. Is this not enough for you? Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

In the interest of ticking off all the boxes and giving you every chance to avoid sanctions, I will explain why your source is not good enough:

The authorship of the source, combined with the clear and obvious support within that source for a position which is clearly considered fringe by consensus of relevant experts. If you do not understand how a source making claims in defiance of the scientific consensus is a WP:FRINGE source, regardless of who published it, then you lack the competence to edit this project. If you deny that "Psi does not exist" is a scientific consensus, then you lack the competence to edit. If you do not understand how your proposed edition presents a false balance between mainstream and fringe views, then you lack the competence to edit here. If, however, you grasp all of those concepts and accept them, then you will drop this subject and move on to more productive editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I fear you are straying into ad hominem. Even if a thing is fringe it doesn't mean it should be excluded. It should be balanced by other sources. There are plenty of opposing sources here. Any defense of parapsychology is excluded from this article, even, it seems, admissions, even by skeptics, that it has not been fairly judged are excluded.

I'd like to draw your attention to a request for arbitration decision here where it was found that "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking." If there is serious scientific study going on in parapsychology it should be included. Just because someone is a parapsychologist does not ipso facto mean they can be excluded. Science advances by assessing new evidence as it appears.

You appear to have a fixed view that parapsychology is bunk and therefore the views of parapsychologists should be excluded and it shoudn't be studied. That is an unscientific view. There are lots of things in science that are not proved. That doesn't mean the study of them is not science. There are lots of things in science that we don't understand the mechanism of how they work, but they work nevertheless. I take a medicine that falls into this category. It it still efficacious regardless of the fact that no one knows why it works. It was recommended to me by a doctor who can admit he doesn't know how it works. It is still being studied to find out how it works. That is a scientific view. Have you even considered for a moment that perhaps a person devoted to debunking a thing is not an independent source?Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Refactoring this page

User:Morgan Leigh I have reverted your previous edit to this page, as you have made major changes to your own and others posts.

Please explain why? Thanks. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 22:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how adding replies to comments, correctly indenting them, not removing any text and not altering a word of any other editor's text is "Major changes to your own and other's posts? Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't "correctly indenting them." The way you indented implied that Guy Macon's comment was in reply to the comment you added. See WP:THREAD.--tronvillain (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Also see WP:RTP. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 00:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that my indenting was out by one level. I do apologise. This hardly constitutes "major changes". I have reinstated text that was removed at the end. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

The way to handle this is for everyone to stop responding.

Ignore non-consensus commentary on talk and revert any unhelpful edits to the article "per consensus on talk".

If this is taken to an admin noticeboard onlookers will see a civil discussion and will ask what the problem is. Of course an enthusiast will always reply to a response. It's other people who are feeding the disruption. When was the last time you converted a True Believer? Stop trying. Handy links: WP:NOTFORUM + WP:CONSENSUS. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm in. I am ceasing respo

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not about convincing him that there is no psi, but about showing that his POV is fringe, that science as a whole disagrees with him, that his idea of NPOV is not in accordance with WP rules, and that his reasoning is spurious. If the rules are clear on this, it should be possible to point to the relevant pages. If they are not, they should be made clearer.

I think the problem is: he sees the rules pages and thinks "this does not apply to me, since my POV is in line with reliable sources" or something similar.

The goal of discussions like this is never to convince the opponent but to show up the weakness of the opponent's position to third parties. This cannot be achieved by banning or by not responding; those are only appropriate after the goal has been achieved. Has it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This sounds a tiny bit like you are saying want to change the rules to make them suit your point of view... You seem to be confusing my attempts to add balance with having a belief in psi. I have never stated any such opinion. Have you considered that perhaps it is you skeptics that are the true believers? You appear to believe quite fervently that parapsychology is not science, despite wikipedia findings and rules calling for balance. You seem to have a quite fundamentalist position on expunging all parapsychologists from wikipedia. How is it that you can see the mote in my eye but not the beam in your own? I thought the goal was to give a balanced view. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

How do you think the current discussions on this page would ever end? People obviously enjoy showing the weakness of their opponent's position but that is not the purpose of an article talk page. Is there a realistic chance of the current situation leading to an improvement in the article? If not, then WP:NOTFORUM means the discussions should stop. Anyone wanting a continuous debate should find a different venue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I am only addressing issues relating to edits. Unlike most other editors, I have not expressed any opinions, only tried to add cited information. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of cited information without policy reason

@Roxy the dog: Please explain why you have removed cited information from the lede. You have not cited a policy reason. I'm not sure what you mean by "not covered in body text". Of things quoted in the lede, Blitz, Cordón, Gross, Hacking and Kurtz are not mentioned anywhere else but the lede, Bierman, Carroll, Friedlander, and Pigliucci are mentioned but not their quotes in the lede and Odling-Smee and Stein are not mentioned, though they are cited. How can it be that this is fine for criticism in the lede but not fine for the only statement in the lede that has any thing to say in defense? The only other thing I can think of that you might mean is that the topic of criticism is not covered, though this is abundantly obviously not the case. Please explain what you mean by "cherry picked"? Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

See my Edsums. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected the article for two days to end the current content dispute/edit war - please use this time to discuss changes. Once the protection lapses, further disruptive editing or edit warring will result in blocks. Thanks - TNT ^💖 11:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)