Talk:Psychic detective

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This article presents only the skeptical angle and although it does use neutral language the conclusions are very one sided. The external links also only point to specific 'skeptic' sites. I feel the article needs some restructuring and more discussion of the possible merits of this kind of work. --Solar 10:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

(moved here by —BillC talk 22:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)):

There are no "documented cases" of psychics helping solve any crimes. This article is incorrect. Psychics have been repeatedly proven to be fakes. Recall Sylvia Browne telling a couple on TV that their son was dead, which he wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I second that motion.[edit]

This article is extremely biassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2005 (UTC)

Come on now, wiki is being edited by the FBI and wiki has already proved this. Psychic abilities have been sought out by all nations intelligence departments and every nations universities before I was born. The Spiritual Realms are fact not fiction. Take this article down as it is bias and unintelligent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is not only grossly biased, it is factually incorrect in a number of crucial details. For instance: ""Scotland Yard never approaches psychics for information..." I am a psychic, and I have been approached by Scotland Yard on a number of occasions. And in fact my involvement in at least two major investigations was publicly acknowledged by Scotland Yard. Furthermore, I receive requests from police forces all over the world (including the US and UK) almost on a daily basis, to assist with intractable murder and missing persons cases.

"There are no official police psychics in England." This is true, but misleading. While there are no "official police psychics", the UK police do keep a database of psychics "who in the past have been helpful" in criminal investigations, at the National Crime Faculty.

"There is no recorded instance in England of any psychic solving a criminal case or providing evidence or information that led directly to its solution." Again, this statement is misleading. Evidence (or information) provided by a psychic cannot be presented in court; therefore, while a psychic may be able to provide the police with information which enables them to obtain evidence against specific individuals, or to pursue a certain course of action, the psychic's role ends at that point, and his or her contribution to the resolution of a case can never be officially acknowledged, since this would jeopardise the conviction. The fact that there are no *recorded* instances of psychics providing information that led *directly* to the solution of a case does not mean that no psychic has ever solved, or playing a role in solving, police cases.

Zak Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Zak, why don't you tell us the precise details? You give us the names of the actual persons from Scotland Yard who have approached you "on a number of occasions" and we can write to them and check. And if your "involvement in at least two major investigations was publicly acknowledged by Scotland Yard" then you can no doubt give us the date and time this occurred, the names of the investigations and the manner of the public acknowledgment, which can then be researched and verified and cited, and this will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia.

I look forward to hearing from you. This should be most interesting.

Princhester —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now posted links to newspaper articles reporting specific cases (including ones that I myself was involved in) at least half a dozen times, and they keep getting deleted, presumably by "critical thinking skeptics" who see it as their duty (to scientism) to refute and deny any and all evidence for psychic abilities. What are they afraid of? Just to prove you wrong, here is a London Evening Standard report of a case in which Scotland Yard publicly acknowledged my involvement. And here's another: No doubt these links will disappear in short order, as has every previous link I've posted here. It is certainly true that the police are generally reluctant to acknowledge the help of psychics (in the first place this implies that they have failed to make progress through normal police methods, and in the second place there are tricky legal implications regarding evidence produced by psychics if and when the case comes to trial), but this should not be taken as evidence that police forces do not consult psychics, or that psychics do not contribute to the resolution of cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Zak Martin

PS - There is an interesting discussion on this topic here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a section here just a few days ago, with links to reports verifying my earlier statements. Why have my comments been deleted (again)? This is the third or fourth time I have comment to this page and it has been removed almost immediately. The so-called "critical thinkers" must spend every waking hour here looking for information to delete that does not support their skeptical stance. Again, what are they so afraid of? They make dismissive comments and demand evidence; but within hours of that evidence being posted they delete it! Example: "Pinchester", above, challenged me to provide evidence of investigations in which my participation was publicly acknowledged by Scotland Yard. I posted links to two London newspaper articles (three times, the most recent just a couple of days ago) in which Scotland Yard acknowledged my involvement in two cases. Where did the links go? The fact is, the "critical thinkers" who trash these pages have no interest whatsoever in debating this subject or examining the evidence in an objective way. They are merely interested in forcing their views on other people, even if this means monitoring Wikipedia and removing information which challenges those views. They have zero integrity. Zak Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

note: the deleted comment (from 9 Dec 2008) has been restored. ‑‑xensyriaT 00:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The deleted comments were restored, so why hasn't my Wikipedia page been restored? It was taken down, as I was led to understand, because my "claim" to have been consulted in police cases was queried by certain members of a skeptical organization. My original Wikipedia page entry is now here: Apart from that, this article is still false and misleading. It still states categorically that the British police never consult psychics, yet I provided links to articles in newspapers like The London Evening Standard, The Observer, The Guardian and so on, reporting on investigations in which I had been consulted by police forces in the UK. To my certain knowledge, other psychics have also been consulted by the British police in murder and missing persons cases. Therefore the information given on this page is simply not true, and has been proved to be false. Yet a number of years have passed and it has not been amended. Even the College of Policing guidelines contradict the claim made on this Wiki page. For example: " Police officers searching for missing people should not rule out the help of psychics, according to suggested guidelines for the profession. The person's methods should be asked for and whether they have any "accredited successes," says a consultation document from the College of Policing, which is the official source of professional practice on police work." - Zak Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

.......And I Third it[edit]

You can't get much more biased than this — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of data showing the police in UK worked for at least 16 years with psychic detective \CHRIS ROBINSON....

I ask why these people are so desperate to hide the fact that psi is real and the police sometimes find it of great value... the police are only reluctant to talk about this subject because of the lies of sceptic like Richard Wiseman and his pals in the so callled sceptic world......

Wiseman is now a discredited scientist read the article that exposes him in Paranormal Review published by the SPR.......

It is the sceptics who are the fruads in this subject..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when...[edit] reporting the truth being biased? There are no repeatable, reputable, believable experiments that have proven the existence of any paranormal forces or abilities. By the same token, stating that the Holocaust happened could be called "extremely biased" because it doesn't pander to the Holocaust deniers. Wikipedia is made for reporting what is verifiably true, not people's pet theories and superstitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinkysan (talkcontribs) 10:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So according to that logic, meteorites don't fall to the earth. You could not set up a repeatable experiment to prove that they do. Yet in fact they do. (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And yet[edit]

If this page was about the flat Earth theory I wonder if the same statements would be made. Maybe it's really hard for this article to be unbiased because there's no real eveidence supporting the effectiveness of psychics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, how would you write it less skeptically without embracing the claims and thus making it POV in the other direction? Suggestions please! --Hob Gadling 09:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
NPOV is a simple concept, where there are opposing views or differing arguments you present both sides fairly and with no bias in either direction. I quote "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1] In the case of the existence of ESP there are, of course, opposing views with up to 50% of the general public, the highly educated and scientific community stating a belief in its existence. (Source: 1996 Gallup poll) Scientific evidence on the subject is controversial, but there is supporting evidence. As an example the research of Cornell University's psychology professor Daryl Bem does not give conclusive evidence but it most definitely does show the possibility of ESP being a real phenomena. It seems to me that the science in this area is an ongoing process. Essentially those who have some personal experience or intellectual reasons for believing in the existence of such phenomena are not alone and are quite justified in their standpoint as present science stands. As far as the more specific area of psychic detectives I feel that the NPOV policy can be easily adhered to, as there are examples of members of the law enforcement community publicly supporting psychic detectives as well as counter arguments [2]. In reply to the flat earth comment, there is no relationship to the flat earth theory for reasons stated above (public opinion, science etc.) - Solar 11:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
NPOV is very tricky however, as the opposing sides may still conflict over what is a balanced, neutral POV. For example, once people get over the idea that clairvoyance and telepathy are paranormal, and realize that electromagnetism is involved, experimental protocols will change accordingly; the difference between fortune tellers, cold readings, mentalists, psychic detectives, psychotherapists , etc. narrows, leading to an influx of new troll POV edits from neighboring concept space. -- Vansig 22:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes but psychics in general have about as much hardcore evidence of being real as the easter bunny, yet I'm sure on that page it's listed as fictitious and there's no "other side" to that. Please, this is an encyclopedia, let's stick to concrete, valid claims and not jump around on unproved, supposedly supernatural occurences. -- BrandonR 06:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear BrandonR, Please read my entry above on NPOV. If you follow Wikipedia policy, which is non-negotiable, and includes the principles of representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias, you will have to note that your comments are not in line with that policy. Statements like "there's no other side to that" after what I have already stated above (with citations of course) shows a huge bias and POV. If you have a problem with fair representation of different views please take this up with the Wikimedia Foundation. - Solar 11:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes but why should an academic project support information for which there is no academic backing? This goes beyond the concept of NPOV... -- BrandonR 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Please take the time to read NPOV#Pseudoscience, Thanks. - Solar 10:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Solar, you are not being helpful. I asked specifically: "Also, how would you write it less skeptically without embracing the claims and thus making it POV in the other direction? Suggestions please!"
All you did in response was quote well-known general comments, sounding like a preacher. But how to apply them to this case?
BTW, BrandonR is allowed to speak his mind on the discussion page, and you have no business forbidding him that. --Hob Gadling 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll surrender defeat, but only due to existing Wikipedia policy. This appears to be a clear and evident downfall to Wikipedia, to provide equal sides of all topics (especially the most absurd or scientifically flawed) is not something an academic website should do. After all, I'm sure something like the flat-earth theory wouldn't be represented as having a modern life in other encyclopedias. With that said, I do understand your view on wanting to enforce policies, no matter how ridiculous they may be. -- BrandonR 15:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Solar, I would like to note: Jimbo says significant backing, and, reading up on NPOV: Pseudoscience, this is clarified as scientific backing. It does fairly represent the significant scientific viewpoint. I think that polls of what people believe show significance, but not a significant scientific view. Research with no conclusion does not support anything, either.
There are huge amounts of people with belief in this, and a lot with experience, but that makes it significant in a social, rather than scientific sense, especially as a mechanism by which such experience could be gained is not recognised. It is therefore my opinion that the article should show the scientific light (which is so far very negative) and the social light seperately and distinctly.
I would also hugely appreciated if, in each case, you could clearly disseminate straw man arguments and logical fallacies.
In response to the first paragraph on this page, so fix it. Clearly a large number of people 'biased against' this have failed - can't you moderate that from your perspective?
fel64 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


I have replaced the notice as this article still shows only the skeptical POV and makes biased statements. I will be making some changes in the next week in an attempt to bring it closer to the NPOV policy, if this does not meet with consensus approval after discussion I will nominate the article to be checked for its neutrality. - Solar 10:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, show some evidence[edit]

This lands in the "Elvis lives" department — New Age spiritualists always use logic like this. Is there evidence that psychic detectives have ever consistently helped solve crimes, beyond a few attributable to chance? The truth is "biased?" Under NPOV#Pseudoscience we have:

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view ...

Pyschic phenomena is pseudoscience, without the remotest shred of evidence. It's fine to say some believe in psychic detectives. It is not majority scientific opinion, nor should be presented as such.

dino 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It really saddens me that so many who claim to be scientific and fair resort to strawman arguments and veiled insults. In this discussion alone I have been met with all manner of strawmen and sensationalist arguments to statements I have not even made, including reference to: the Holocaust, flat Earth theory, the Easter bunny and now insulting generalisations like "This lands in the "Elvis lives" department — New Age spiritualists always use logic like this". As far as psi or esp I have only stated that IMHO the work of scientists like Dean Radin and Daryl Bem etc, show the "possibility of ESP being a real phenomena" nothing more (their work is available in book form if you would like to review it). Having said that, my issues with this article have nothing to do with the reality or not of esp. My problems with the article are to do with the fact that we do not hear from police officers who have used PD's, the 'In fiction' section appears above the 'In reality' section, the language is misleading in some parts and all the references point to skeptic pages, as well as the use of the word 'official' in a misleading manner, as many psychics have indeed been praised for example, but not officially, etc. All of this does not result in a factual article, it results in a very misleading one. NPOV is about presenting a subject in a way that allows the reader to shape an informed opinion. In my last statement here (which can be read above) I have only stated I will try to improve things and then put the changes to discussion or neutrality review, why would any fair individual have a problem with this? Please wait for the changes to be made before attacking them. Thank-you, - Solar 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded insulting[edit]

Sorry if I sounded insulting. I am used to the forces of superstition using any lie to achieve their ends -- this is the Bush administration in America, that will use anything to shove religion in public life. I do not know who spoke of "the Holocaust, flat Earth theory, the Easter bunny." Not me.

But I love the "possibility of ESP being a real phenomena." It's simply so absolutely meaningless. Use of dubious language?

Do you want links to New Age pages? I have never seen a page on New Age -- and I've read a few -- that wasn't rife with lies and dubious logic. They still think Edgar Cayce and Uri Geller had psychic powers, and believe in long-discredited notions such as the Bermuda Triangle, and flat-out nonsense like astrology.

Do we have statements from "police officers who have used PD's"? Let's see them. Can anyone cite any actual evidence?

Should we foster a superstition that leads to police wasting precious resources on usually-useless leads? I cannot agree. While the psychic believer position does deserve mention, it now deserves no credence.

dino 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See below, Re.:Court TV. This even shows the "psychic detectives" at work. In one case I've seen, a psychic detective was arrested for murder because this person knew more about the murder than the police. She has sued the police for false imprisonment. That got me "hooked" watching that sort of thing. Martial Law 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Court TV[edit]

Find on Court TV a show about "psychic detectives". Go to the article Court TV for more on this matter. Martial Law 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

A television show?[edit]

We are ready to quote from a television show? I don't watch TV, precisely because I consider it garbage. A television show? That's really dependable. TV is about entertainment — not truth. In the distant past I have seen TV give credence to say, the Bermuda Triangle. Space aliens. Nostradamus. April 24 - 30, 2006 is TV Turnoff Week,

Doesn't it seem kind of dangerous to give the remotest credence to psychic phenomena? Young children read wikipedia. Should they grow up to believe lies? Should police waste precious resources on useless leads? Let me re-iterate:

While the psychic believer position deserves mention, it deserves no credence.

dino 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

watch this documentary.[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this article is MASSIVELY biased[edit]

Like an advertisement for "when skepticultists attack". How about a little bit of information from the OTHER side? Mention the fact that most psychics who claim to have worked with police also claim that they had to sign documents stating they wouldn't reveal their involvement with any specific case. That is a neutral enough statement, and it certainly explains the level of 'hush-hush'. Omigosh, you mean the authorities might LIE? Let's get something very straight here--the question of whether or not psi abilities exist has not been answered, and those who promote a belief in them are not telling lies. Any claim to the contrary is a mere faith--hence, skepticult, not skepticism. Skepticism is about keeping an open mind. Present your evidence, but don't draw conclusions that aren't fully supported by it. Lack of evidence is not equal to evidence of lack in the scientific method. Should we lie to our children, and tell them that this question has been fully resolved, when it has not? One look into quantum physics tells us just exactly how little we actually know, as opposed to what we think we know. New discoveries in the field of physics are made every day, as our technology continues to improve. It is the height of arrogance to draw a conclusion on something which has been reported ubiquitously in every culture across the planet, without enough evidence to directly indicate a conclusion--EITHER conclusion. However, what we do have evidence for is this: Psi phenomena exist. We don't know what they are, how they work, or anything else about them, but at the very least repeated testing has shown that something currently unexplainable is indeed happening. Also, the argument seems silly to the some 5 to 10% of the population who report actually having these abilities. You can tell them it's not real until you're blue in the face, but their personal experiences have given them the evidence THEY need to believe it. You're going to have to do better than merely yelling about the lack of objective evidence. You're going to have to prove what IS happening in all of these cases. Until that happens, the only rational stance is the same one that has come up time and time again in psi testing: INCONCLUSIVE. — Preceding comment signed as by WingedWolfPsion (talkcontribs) 6:41 PM (Mtn), 6 June 2006 actually added by (talkcontribs) 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's convenient. You know, I'm the one who discovered where Saddam Hussein was hiding, but the military made me to sign a document saying that I'd keep it confidential. That's why they won't say anything about it. To rely on one person's claim that they did something extraordinary that no one else can back up is illogical. Lack of evidence for something in the scientific method means it isn't there; that's Occam's Razor. If the only rational stance is inconclusive, then those who argue for it are every bit as irrational as those who argue against it.--Prosfilaes 09:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You should get your facts straight, Occam's Razor indicates that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." Note the word tends. And Occam's Razor says nothing about scientific method. For example, the existence of atoms were theorized long before there was any scientific evidence to prove their existence. Black holes were theorized long before there was proof of their existence. To say that lack of evidence proves something doesn't exist is really quite sad. -- General Disarray — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, oh, here we go again[edit]

There is no evidence of psychic phenomena. Period. For now, the psychic believer position deserves mention, but it deserves no credence. Police in general will not touch psychics, and for good reason.

The logic in the last was so poor I debated writing anything, "reported ubiquitously in every culture across the planet" — meaningless. So are ghosts.

"Mention the fact that most psychics who claim to have worked with police also claim that they had to sign documents stating they wouldn't reveal their involvement with any specific case."

Cite? Evidence? Books and magazines about spirituality don't cut it. Cites about quantum physics are no more than a recent fad in New Age. No evidence. Us skeptics must live in an America extremely hostile to us, from the Bushies on the right to New Age spiritualists on the left. And we're tired of it. Should we feed our children lies? That there is a mysterious spirit world that the enlightened can contact, for which no evidence is ever provided? That psychic phenomena exist?

dino 03:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion and I will probably not stay long since I have limited expertise in this area.
"Psychic detective" is a pop culture reference to a special instance of mediumship, clairvoyance and especially remote viewing. It might be mediumship in that some practitioners seek to gain information via an etheric third party. In all cases, it satisfies the definition of clairvoyance or one of the "clair-*" abilities, but current research usually approaches it as remote viewing. The basis of evidence for all three views are or should be documented in the associated Wikipedia entries. I believe that it would be more realistic to replace the contents of this entry with a simple: "Psychic Detective: a special application of mediumship or remote viewing intended to acquire information about lost items or details of a crime. See also, psychic architecture ..." and whatever else there is in Wikipedia that is a special instance of one of the basic abilities. You can stop there because it is just a definition. Then you can concentrate on making sure the wording in the other entries are balanced. Just a suggestion.
dino, I understand your concern. My field is EVP, but I am very concerned that so many people -- proponents and skeptics -- represent EVP without regard to the research. When I encounter a person who believes something that I feel is irrational, and that goes for religiously skeptical, religiously New Age and just plain very religious, I ask them to examine the source of what they believe. Who taught them what they believe and what were that teacher's qualifications. I ask them to learn the difference between tradition and empirical evidence. Too much of what we believe to be true has been taught to us by our culture and is really lore. Finally I say that people should believe what they wish, but they should also know what they believe and the implications of that belief. None of us would have you lie to your kids, what we want is for you to teach them to be critical thinkers. The evidence will speak for itself. Tom Butler 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a very simple fact: *Every* major scientific study into psychic abilities over the past hundred years has produced positive findings. The reality of psychic abilities has been scientifically proven over and over again. Furthermore, surveys carried out in the same period have consistently shown that *most people* - including scientists - accept the reality of psychic abilities. The only people who reject the substantial body of scientific and anecdotal evidence for psychic abilities are self-styled "skeptics" who see it as their mission in life to promote a materialistic/mechanistic view of the world, and who are prepared to go to almost any lengths - and stoop to any depths - to attack psychics and discredit scientists who carry out research into this subject.

Zak Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Report the facts[edit]

Until someone can produce real evidence to even suggest that psychics are anything more than middle-aged women with nothing better to do, dont claim this article to be biased. While it does show a certain point of view, that view is that of the evidence available. No credible source outside of the psychics themselves or entertainment media claims their legitimacy. All facts point to the conclusion that 'Psychic detectives' are completely bogus and ineffective, and this article reflects that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandgt (talkcontribs) 03:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Slicing and Dicing the facts[edit]

There is plenty of evidence for someone with the correct motivation. All the Skeptics seem to suffer from fear of a contact disease. As if actual contact would mark them with a modern form of a scarlet letter. Part of it's a money motivation.

There are enough books with almost a "cake mix" set of instructions. Any person who follows such instructions, as they were intended, will have the desired results. With the most elementary use of common sense, no men in red pajamas will ever appear.

What does not work is standing frozen at the doorway and never taking that first step for fear of ridicule. What does not work is taking someone at their word simply because they have a title. Doctors and Lawyers lie on the witness stand for personal gain every day of their lives. What does not work is not giving it the amount of thought it deserves.

All worthwhile evidence is going to be subjective initially. No one's going to come up with an ESP pill soon.

Any amount of meditation will bring power and genius with time. That power and genius surpasses anything science will find for the next century and it's immeadiately avaliable, by degree, in the present time.

Actually, reading the commentary of so called professional skeptics is amusing. Anyone with familarity with the construction of propaganda, language arguements from basic logic books or Noam Chomsky books will see a raving child looking for attention, and failing.

The least they could do is spend time with their comments and make them "appear" professional. Also examining the subconcious motivations of the Skeptics for creating a deliberate fraud, by falsifying evidence and filling a magazine with it while ignoring valid and frequent applications for Randi's money.

The magazine does have a value, but it serves the psychic community more than anyone else. They should expand the content to attract a wider readership, it's becomming redundant. Don92707 06:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, redux, plus a few of the ad hominem attacks us skeptics are used to[edit]

"Plenty of evidence?" Cite some.
"Money motivation?" Millions are made on books and seminars about New Age, while us skeptics scarce survive.
What does not work is taking someone at their word simply because they have a title. I've noticed books about spirituality are always written by "So-and so, comma, Ph.D." Why is absolute nonsense given credence because of a (usually) diploma-mill Ph.D.?
"reading the commentary of so called professional skeptics is amusing" Reading New Age books is a screaming riot. Us skeptics do not appreciate the ad hominem attacks.
Skeptics ... creating ... deliberate fraud, by falsifying evidence Wow. Sounds like how us skeptics look at New Age, for inventing / borrowing frauds like crop circles, Atlantis, psychic phenomena, "psychics" like the fraud Uri Geller, ... You want falsified evidence?

Seriously, I am unsure of why I responded to these ad hominem attacks. Can we have some politeness?

dino 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Law Enforcement tag removal[edit]

I removed the WP:LE tag as this is not a recognized form of Law Enforcement officialEMT1871 11:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to the believers[edit]

It won't help to try and save the pseudoskeptical soul on here. If any of you can go to library and do the research, and if there are WP:V sources, then we can get them in. Otherwise, beyond basic NPOVing and de-weaseling, there's nothing to be done. Unless anyone just wants to make a Parapedia wiki. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent writing error[edit]

A recent addition read,

*Every* major scientific study into psychic abilities over the past hundred years has produced positive findings.

That should read,

*Every* major scientific study into psychic abilities over the past hundred years has produced negative findings.

Careful about those writing errors. There is not the remotest evidence that physic phenomena exist. Take the Randi Challenge and prove psychic phenomena, be it that it exists.

Oh, a few studies have revealed positive results. Their methodology was always flawed. Reading Zak Martin's web site, he sound pretty impressive. Let's see him put his "skills" to the test. Take the Randi Challenge.

dino 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Actually, I did accept the so-called Randi challenge. Mr. Randi did a "no-show". That was before the "Randi challenge" included clauses and conditions that made it into nothing more than a publicity-seeking scam.
That aside, the opinion of a second-rate magician (with a poor grasp of physics) can be disregarded. The simple fact is that, whenever researchers find positive evidence for psychic abilities, skeptics dismiss them on the basis that their "methodology was flawed" (without, of course, providing any proof to substantiate this claim).
You claim that: "Every major scientific study into psychic abilities over the past hundred years has produced *negative* findings."
Please name just *one* major independent scientific study into psychic abilities which produced negative evidence.
I can name a dozen studies which found positive evidence for psychic abilities. Name one that produced negative evidence.
Zak Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're putting me to sleep ...[edit]

Look, I'm sick of the ad hominem attacks from New Agers. A "second-rate magician?" A "poor grasp of physics?" And the frauds who made What the Bleep Do We Know!? had a good grasp of physics? In short, take your bad manners elsewhere. I am not giving you the time of day.

dino 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Randi is a second-rate magician. He made his name as Uri Geller's stalker-debunker. He certainly has a poor grasp of physics, if his chapter on quantum mechanics in "Science and the Paranormal" is anything to go by. In this book he exposes his complete lack of grasp of the subject he's expounding on. I think I might have to write a book titled "Debunking the Debunkers", because some of the stuff many of these soi-disant "skeptics and critical thinkers" come out with is outrageously dishonest and/or misinformed.

Zak Martin95.16.59.26 (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

how come[edit]

how come many skeptics (not all of them, but many) tink that they have the r ight ot damage wikipedia with thier stupid assertions and then dont want to back them up excep tby saiyng "ad-hominem"??? Smith Jones 01:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

how come no one on this page wants to provide any sources to verify their claims?
how come instead of writing what could be an interesting article on the history of psychic detectives and their use by police forces (rightly or wrongly). The claims of psychics should be included for NPOV reasons as equally should the claims of sceptics. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not an idealogical battleground. I personally am highly sceptical about the paranormal but why should my opinion matter. Reliable sourced material is what is needed, not opinion, and for the sake of making the article useful to ANYONE interested in the subject it should represent all sides of the debate.. but why should there be a debate in an article which is supposed to present the full picture.. if you believe in psychic powers.. fair play well done.. and if you don't.. great.. but this article (and all the rest) isn't supposed to represent your opinion.. if you are genuinely interested in making a difference get sourcing..

just a little note to skeptics.. as irritating as paranormal beliefs are and as annoying as the tactics of proponents to their cause may be, they still represent quite a sizeable portion of the worlds population and therefore their claims should be represented if just to give wikipedia a sense of the complete picture.. at the end of the day even the sceptic POV is just a claim to a point of view (as right as that POV might be or seem to be) (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In fiction[edit]

"There is a long history of psychic detectives in horror and crime fiction, and in other genres as well." Is this statement true, and if so can someone back it up with some solider examples? I came to this article because I wanted to find out if there was any fiction written about these sorts of detectives, and this statement is tantalizingly vague! A psychic detective, as defined in the article, is someone claiming to have paranormal abilities who investigates (generally) normal, non-paranormal crimes. Jules de Grandin, on the other hand, is a normal, non-paranormal detective (a la Hercule Poirot) who specializes in investigating crimes that involve (or appear to involve) the paranormal. That's quite a different thing, really, and quite commonplace in fiction (where supernatural things happen more often than in the real world). If you mean there's a long tradition of the latter I'd agree with you, but it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. If there really is a long tradition of psychic detective fiction, you really need to give another couple of examples dating back to the twentieth century at least. (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I've cut the External links section of this article as it had unfortunately become a spam magnet and appeared to contain little of any value. Please ensure all external links added to the article comply with WP:LINKS - ie, they are "kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article". Links are only required if they expand on the article content beyond what it would contain if it became a featured article. If the linked page contains any meritable information and meets Wikipedia's reliable source criterion, its content would be better paraphrased in the article itself. EyeSerenetalk 11:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Police Response[edit]

I again added a United States response as it was previously deleted by someone known for their extreme skepticism, but that marked the edit NPOV. Under police response it makes sense to mention a time when police in the United States publicly admitted to using a psychic detective. It is referenced by the interview with the detective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TED80 (talkcontribs) 15:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Who would that editor be? If you link the diff I'll take a look. Verbal chat 15:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you yourself renamed a section and then removed the Pittsburgh story from that section as it was no longer relevant to the new title. --McGeddon (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The given source merely says that the police "begrudgingly agreed" to working alongside a psychic, for the sake of a grieving family. It's not clear that the investigation was particularly influenced. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

TED80 has now added this source, which doesn't suggest any direct connection between the psychics and the police investigation - it just says how the psychics are driving around looking for a missing child who's the subject of a current police investigation. This is presumably quite common, and unremarkable. --McGeddon (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the police "begrudgingly agreed" or what the psychics involvement entailed. The police have used them, although not often successfully. --TED80 —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

It's misleading to describe this case as the police "using" a psychic - all the article says is that the police agreed to respect the wishes of a grieving family by having a psychic work alongside them, and that a month after the person went missing, a search crew found the body in a location that matched the psychic's prediction. It's not made clear that the police were searching this location at the suggestion of the psychic. --McGeddon (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree with McGreddon here. The UK Sceptics source is a RS for the sentence about the UK Sceptics survey. Verbal chat 16:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and the section on what is not vandalism. McGeddon repeatedly deleted neutral additions to this article that had references to Fox News and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, replacing them with comments backed by the source: "UK Skeptics". McGeddon, please consult Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source and cease your vandalism of the article as it is not NPOV. --TED80 comment added 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please check the edit history - I haven't touched this article since January. --McGeddon (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake McGeddon, my last comments should have been directed to Verbal. --TED80 comment added 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Reliable Sources[edit]

Deleting content with references to Fox News and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to replace them with content that references the "UK Skeptics" and the "Skeptical Inquirer" doesn't seem to indicate a NPOV to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TED80 (talkcontribs) 15:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Fox News story didn't appear to support the assertion that they were "assisting police" - from my reading, these were just a group of psychics privately investigating a child's disappearance.
The other source is fine, but makes for a very weak section by itself - after explaining the policy of other country's police forces, it doesn't give the reader much insight to say "and in America, one police force once worked with a psychic". I thought the Skeptical Inquirer source was actually pretty neutral (saying that a third of polled police departments have listened to psychics in the past), but it was just the first one that came up in Google from a reliable published source; if you want to dig out a better one that gives an overview of the police use of psychics, feel free. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear on the definition of Reliable published source. There's a section which says that self-published sources are generally not acceptable. Now while I personally read the Skeptical Inquirer avidly and consider it informative and reliable, since it is a self-published magazine, and not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, how does it meet the category of reliable published source by Wikipedia standards? Not questioning it's actual reliability, I think all of us skeptics can agree on that, but at the same time, it seems like there might be something wrong with the Wikipedia policy because after reading it, I get the impression that both it and the JREF website might be considered unreliable sources under the policy's definition. If someone can explain how they fit as reliable sources under wikipedia's policy, I would be very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the question. I'll try to answer, though want to mention that you need to sign any comments you make "by typing four tildes (Sgerbic (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC))" thats how we know who you are and when you post. SWIFT blog isn't the greatest source as it is a primary source, usually I wait till SWIFT has been picked up by another source which would make it a secondary source. SI, Skeptic Mag and the like are considered scholarly magazines. Most blogs aren't considered reputable, but blogs at NBC, ABC, Huff Post... are considered okay. Joe's blog isn't. I think it is just the readership numbers/reputation.

If someone on a podcast/blog is talking about the paranormal (and they don't have the reputation/expertize to be quoted, then generally I don't do it. But if a podcast/blog is interviewing someone like Michael Shermer or PZ Meyers and they say something relevant to a WP article, then it is okay to quote.

You know it is difficult to really edit to the word of law on WP. What works in one situation may not work in another, no wonder we burn through editors so quickly. I suggest that you ask (I'm game) or just include the edit and if others have a problem with it, hopefully they will politely explain why, so you can improve your editing skills. I write a blog on editing for skeptical content (that I do not want to plug here), but Dunning's Skeptoid site has an article about just your question. maybe that will explain better than I have. Hope to hear from you. Sgerbic (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a Good Article[edit]

I have never contributed to a talk page before, so sorry if I mess this up. I just came to this article to get a sense for how often the police actually consult with "psychic" detectives, but what I found was potentially the worst non-vandalized Wikipedia article I have ever read. There is still a bias toward disbelief (even though I find it to be nonsense, it still stuck out to me), the article seems to contradict itself (under the Britain section first the departments are reporting they never used psychics, then a quote is given saying they have never relied fully on them!?!?!?!), and it is generally poorly organized. I recommend removing all of the skepticism, which belongs in an article on psychic abilities (at most one line about the reliability of the claimed abilities should be included in what is, essentially a job). I don't know exactly how it should look in the end, or what else needs to happen, but something needs to be done people! (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nashville Police Psychic Gale Carrier[edit]

Perhaps you may use the article I wrote on nashville police psychic Gale Carrier. Here is the link: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is NOT biased. Not giving credibility to your particular, unproven, supernatural belief isn't bias. (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Critical commentary section unnecessary[edit]

The placement of the Critical commentary section currently reads as a joke because nearly the entire article is "critical commentary". The section could probably be removed and the material merged into the rest of the article -OR- the entire article could be less critical. - Steve3849talk 18:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


I'd like to take a stab at improving this article. At present, the section on "Official police responses" seems to dominate the rest of the article. Other sections seem to include statements in a haphazard way. Additional content that I'd like to suggest is: prominent police cases involving psychics, concerns over the use of psychic detectives (other than simply that they are inaccurate), as well as explanations for the belief in psychic detectives. Any thoughts about how to maintain NPOV is welcomed. John.Farquhar (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well the dust seems to have cleared John. This page needs to be cleaned up, I think it can be handled in a neutral way. We can leave in all the history of PD, in fiction, ect. I think that we can also gather up all the evidence that the psychics say is out there proving that psychic detectives do indeed solve crimes. We should also put in the experts who know more about this subject than I do. I wonder if maybe Marc Klass from the Marc Klass foundation might have an opinion on this subject. We can also take a re-look at the skeptics citations (which I am) and see if they are clearly stating facts. There is an article on the "Best Evidence for Psychic Detectives" by Ben Radford that I think needs its own section here. I'll help you clean this up John, and maybe we can elicit some help from the believers as well? Sgerbic (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Books that I currently have checked out include Whoever fights monsters, Mind hunter: inside the FBI's elite serial crime unit, Psychic sleuths: ESP and sensational cases, and A Mind for Murder: The Real-Life Files of a Psychic Investigator. Let me know if I can assist with anything from those texts. John.Farquhar (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

John and Sgerbic...sorry I got on a roll and couldn't stop! I've added a number of cases where Police have used psychics - or psychics have gone to the police with the information which led to bodies being found. They are mostly Australian, one US. Tried to be factual as possible, and remain NPOV. Aboriginal Psychics seem to be doing pretty well! I've also tried to broaden the general policy/reality aspect of police and Psychics. It seems, rather amusingly, when police are asked they say "we never go to Psychics, they're for crazy people".... but in fact the newspapers refer to a police calling in psychics on a number of occasions. So I have tried to indicated the schism between official policy, and in fact what the cops actually do with Psychics. From the articles I have read, in Australia, its mainly the NSW Police in particular seem to be happy to use psychics, particularly Debbie Malone.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your passion on getting this page together. The cites you are leaving are very slanted towards the psychic, as there is no counter to the story from a critical point of view. Wish we had some of that to level the story out. As I wrote on my blog, a interview on a newspaper can say just about anything, its just a person making a claim (the moon is made of cheese and I flew there and ate some that is how I know) That kind of claim when it ends up in a newspaper is citable according to WP, but how likely it is to be true? Psychics finding bodies using their mind, it could all have been just the way it was reported. If it was factual then why is it not all over the media? That psychic would be the most powerful person in the world, they would be used in all cold-cases everywhere and being interviewed daily, but the psychic seems to fade away, and only get reported in one article. That just seems odd if the story is true. I think we need to think about how we are representing the page if it is just anadocial (can't spell today sorry) story after another one. Opinions please? Sgerbic (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As for critical views of the Psychics finding the bodies, I haven't found any, apart from some of the police comments in some of the articles. I think there is a certain amount of fact reporting in these Newspaper articles that clearly indicates, in the opinion of the Newspaper, that Pscyhics did find the bodies, and there is no other plausible explanation given. Certainly, if there is an in depht investigation of the cases, that would be great to refere to, but there isn't. As far as "if it was true, wouldn't everyone be using them"...certainly Debbie Malone seems to be used quite a bit by the police, so in fact, they are. But really "what ifs"... this is just conjecture, and as per Wikipedia policy, we can only write on what we can reference in reliable sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Australian Content[edit]

I've just added a bit more Australian content, as psychics in Australia have located at least three bodies as far as my research shows. Like elsewhere, police in Australia do not seem to like to admit to officially using psychics, but in fact they actually do on occasion. In particularly NSW Police, a number of whom have sought advice from Debbie Malone. Interesting stuff, and wouldn't have believed she actually does as much as she does until I read some of these articles.... and I'm naturally a skeptic. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, your citation was already in use on this page, so I used the multiple reference tag for it. By the way, I'd like to consolidate this whole section of the article as I see the same thing being said multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.Farquhar (talkcontribs) 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm removing the articles below as there is no citation to the first paragraph and the second is not re searchable. If you would like me to give more detail why these articles are not noteworthy I will elaborate when asked. Sgerbic (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

However, psychics in Australia have successfully located the bodies of victims, the disappearance of whom were under investigation, on three occasions. In 1996 The body of Paula Brown, who had gone missing, was found after her family contacted Simon Turnbull and two other psychics. They indicated that she had been killed and told the family the location of the body, in Sydney at Port Botany. An initial search missed the body, a second search found the body 15 meters from where the initial indication of the location was.[1]

In 2001, the body of Thomas Braun was located by Perth based clairvoyant Leanna Adams in Western Australia. Police had initially been unable to find the body. They later confirmed the remains to be his using DNA testing.[2]

I have put the reference to Thomas Braun article back in, as it is correctly cited as per Wikipedia policy. If you would like to detail why this reference is not suitable and under which wikipedia policy, please do. I have also added three other references, and added more detail from these articles. The Video excerpt from Kerry Anne Kennerly is now no longer online, and (unfortunately) there is no other references to this incident that I can find, so I agree, this section will have to be now removed as it is now no longer can be referenced. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, have done a bit more research, and now four articles which discusses psychic's help with Paula Brown murder body location. So the missing Kerry Anne Kennerly video is not really an issue. In any case, it lacked detail of the case, but would have been an interesting addition to the references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Debbie Malone[edit]

I have issue with the bias in the para:

>>While official policy for Police Forces in Australia does not advocate the use of psychics for investigations, police in NSW have used psychic Debbie Malone though no evidence she has supplied has solved murders or missing investigations on their own.[5] [6] [7] One former Detective Senior-Constable, Jeffrey Little, felt her description of what happened was "exceptional", while other NSW officers felt she had not helped solve any cases. Sergeant Gae Crea and Detective Sergeant Damian Loone, state that she did not give them anything the police and the public didn't already know. Crea recounts "I've dealt with a lot of psychics, but no one has ever said, 'I can see where the body is buried and I'll take you there'".[5] [6][8] >>

This seems to give the impression that only one Police officer has found Debbie Malone's evidence useful, and that a whole bunch have not. The articles I have read (most of which are referenced here) indicate a number of police officers found her useful, with a number being unable to explain how she knew what she did. It also mentions sergeant Crea's negative comments, however leaves out his positive comment about how she apparentnly knew details about one of the murder victims that only the murder victims mother knew...which he called "bizarre". Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DL I was trying to sum up the article in general. I did write "police in NSW have..." police is plural. Besides this is not an article on Debbie Malone, it is only supposed to mention her. Maybe you should work on creating a page for her? Has there been anything beyond these 4 articles about her? Is she noteworthy enough for her own page yet? The last line "I've dealt with a lot... is general and applies to that Sergeant's experience working with psychic detectives. Just because some people did not know how she "did what she did" does not mean she is doing something paranormal, these are afterall only newspaper articles mentioning her services. If there was something more to her story then more main-stream media would be picking it up and easy to locate.

Keep looking for those citations, I think the page is already a lot better than when we first tackled it, agreed? Sgerbic (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes definitely better, good work. I agree, this is not an article on Debbie Malone. However, it is an article on psychic detectives..and she is a prominent one...the most prominent one in Australia. She may be the only psychic in the world that has been used regularly by Police that there is any verifiable information written on????. I know of no other individual that the police use to this extent? Personally, there is some supposition by me here too......the articles only quote a couple of police discussing her being used....given the police's normal reluctance to speak of such things, her use could be a lot more extensive than is indicated.

In terms of labelling what she did as a psychic activity, because she claims it is, and there is no other explanation at hand..... thats a big one!!!!! Is it a duck? It walks like one, talks like one etc.? She claims she is pscyhic, the police are going to her as a psychic, she is treated and reported on as a pscyhic...and there is no other explanation. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in this instances, so to not refer to her a psychic when everything else indicates she is one would surely be pro sceptic bias?

In terms of Newspapers as a source, I would be happy to use any other source, but haven't found any yet. The fact that Police are reluctant to talk about their use of psychics must be taken into account. Newspapers are or course, a valid reference under wikipedia policy. There is also a recency factor, I think it is only recently that police feel like they can talk about the use of psychics without their buddies thinking they're nutters!!! In fact, most police still seem reluctant to talk about (ie Scotland Yard deny it, then get busted that they actually are). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In terms of her own wikipedia page, I think you are probably correct, there is probably enough on her to substantiate one.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Scientific study of Psychic Detectives[edit]

I have added a new section discussing scientific study of psychic detectives - there has been a number of studies. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Psychic detectives in the UK[edit]

The following was added to the article by User:, but reverted - I think the editor may have been intending to put it forward for discussion, so I'll put it here:-

For further information regarding the possible Police use of Psychics in the United Kingdom, one might refer to the BBC webpage: and additionally to the newspaper article of 27/07/05 as refrerred to by Bernard OMahoney at Also the website of Maria Coppola Whitworth.
The response to the Skeptics enquiry to the Metropolitan Police (21/03/06) elicited a response regarding the use of psychics The response from the Metropolitan Police (07/03/06) confirmed with regard the input from a psychic that..."There is, however, a historical case where this played a major part"Bold text'''Italic text. The file in question seems to be closed for 34 years, but a review can be requested.
See also the questions put to the then Secretary of State Ms. Hazel Blears on 18th July 2003 (vol 409 c998w) and in a similar manner on the 25th October 2005 (Column 355w) http[:// suggesting that the use of information from a psychic is up to the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) whether they accept or reject it?

Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Prominent cases[edit]

The article seems pretty balanced for a contentious topic, and looking at the comments above it seems to have been improved a lot over the years. The one thing I noticed reading through it though was that the Prominent cases section has all the failed cases first, followed by all the successful ones. Though it might be difficult to gauge, wouldn't ordering them in terms of their prominence (or failing that, chronologically) be a far less biased approach? ‑‑xensyriaT 00:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I do think that we need to send some time looking through these "successful ones" and make sure they really are. Just because the news agency reports it as a success does not mean it IS a success. This is the media after all, and sensational sells, not necessarily facts. I'm calling "not it" at the moment, but would totally support someone who has the time.Sgerbic (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, a reliable source investigating these claims as neutrally as possible would be ideal; hopefully someone will add one. In the meantime I've done a quick google on each case to try to gauge media coverage, and strangely, despite a few changes, the division remains with the "successes" getting much less coverage (only the Cheryl Carroll-Lagerwey case—hardly a success itself—comes close to the outright failures). It could be that only when a case garners enough attention is the truth behind the claim outed, but as you point out, I would have thought the more sensational stories would have garnered more coverage. ‑‑xensyriaT 13:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems like there is a policy here on WP about dealing with Fringe claims, I just can't think what it is. Anyway, it deals with how just because a normally good WP source (like a newspaper) might write positively about a fringe topic and not really do its homework to investigate the claim. Then the story would be reported here on WP without criticism but as if it really happened. For example a small newspaper might report that a UFO has turned up in their town and space aliens live in the community. Maybe no one in the bigger media noticed this story, and only this one remains. By WP rules it could be reported as true. It would take some other news source to specifically investigate that story and report on it.Sgerbic (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV (again)[edit]

Personally, I'm sympathetic to the viewpoint that there have been many false claims of people portraying themselves as psychics and, thus, have sometimes seriously hampered criminal investigations. However, since there are documented cases--albeit rare--where psychics have been able to accurately give information that they could not have known otherwise, the article, in my view, needs to tone down the language used in favor of the "skeptics" viewpoint and attempt to balance this more carefully with the "pro-psychic" viewpoint. (I strongly suggest avoiding, for example, the use of the world "claim" wherever possible.) The fact that the subject is contentious should not be justification, in my opinion, for trying to prove one viewpoint over the other; both can co-exist. Also, the many "failures" by would-be psychics does not disprove the existence of legitimate psychics, no matter how infrequently those true psychics may be successful. As a result, I'm reluctantly going to re-place the NPOV tag. Of course, the tag can be removed at any time. But I hope only after the article has been moved significantly closer to that of neutrality.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 13:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kerry Anne Kennerly interviewing Psychics on "Midday Show" 1996
  2. ^ Butler, Paul Milton "DNA test proves body was Braun's" Centralian Advocate, 23/2/2003 p3