|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ray Hyman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This page has just been re-written. As it so badly needed it. Want to state that I did know Hyman before this rewrite as I have attended the Skeptic's Toolbox several times. If you find bias in this article, kindly remove it.Sgerbic (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
Revision on Ganzfeld Debate
Hello. A revision that I made to the section regarding the Ganzfeld debate was removed completely based on an evaluation of my character as an editor. Previously, I went through a standard process for editing, and I have worked on Wikipedia editing for nearly 8 years on multiple topics. It seems that some unnamed editor believes that I have an agenda. Nothing was said about the content of the posting, so I am assuming that the editor who reverted the content was not interested in doing their own research to provide a valid reason for removing the content. If you read the revision that I made, you will find a detailed explanation of the Ganzfeld debate that adds value to the article and describes the amazing events when Hyman collaborated with Honorton to create new procedures for parapsychology. The presentation honors Hyman's activities. I recommend that it either be replaced intact or that suggested edits are provided based on the content of the edit rather than a complete removal based on a character analysis by a single, unnamed editor. Tunsa (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
You have been reverted in the past by several skepic editors for trying to insert your fringe views on Wikipedia regarding parapsychology. The Journal of Parapsychology is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia. It is a fringe pseudoscience journal. You keep adding paranormal papers so they will be deleted. And yes we know Hyman early on published a joint paper in the journal of parapsychology (something he later distanced himself from), we can mention this because reliable third party secondary sources mention it (i.e. academic books or interviews). Only brief mention is required such as a few lines. There is an article on the ganzfeld experiment already. Hyman wrote about the ganzfeld in 2007 pointing out they had never been independently replicated. So please stop spamming in huge chunks of texts about the ganzfeld. Lone skeptic (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It is surprising that there is such a debate about Hyman's publication and that referencing his actual publications is considered a "fringe view". The presentation of information was not fringe science, but information about the publication and cooperation between Hyman and a parapsychologist to advance a scientific examination of the phenomenon. The information in the edit highlighted the leadership and foresight demonstrated by Hyman. The edit that you provided leaves this information out of Hyman's biography and completely ignores the phenomenal cooperative effort that he made to contribute to the Ganzfeld methodology and improve scientific protocol. I understand your desire to avoid references to Hyman's contribution to this journal, but it is historically accurate and an example of the excellent qualities demonstrated in this specific situation. Tunsa (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- There were several things wrong with your contribution. Just a few items:
- "showed great leadership" - This article should be written in encylopedic style. It is not a eulogy or a puff piece.
- "to meet the standards set by Hyman" - What Hyman objected to were rookie mistakes such as multiple testing or sensory leakage. By describing avoidance of those rookie mistakes as "standards set by Hyman" you make Hyman appear as an ideosyncratic persnickety nitpicker when he is really just pointing out how to do science to people who need it explained to them.
- Also, as pointed out above, it is too long. What the article already says on the subject is enough.
- That said, the IP's edit summary  was indeed not helpful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on the content of my contribution. I recognize that the information may have come off as "too puffy". The collaboration between Hyman and Honorton to create the Auto-Ganzfeld technique is important to his contributions to the Ganzfeld, and it demonstrates his interests in collaboration to advance scientific activities. It should be included in this section if this section is intended to represent Hyman's activities related to the Ganzfeld.
- Also, I disagree with your statement about Hyman's standards. The Auto-Ganzfeld design was created to avoid sensory leakage and automate the data recording process. My description related to testing AFTER the Auto-Ganzfeld was used based on the designs presented by Hyman and Honorton, not based on the original protocol that Hyman first criticized. My intention was not to portray a perspective on Hyman, but rather to present the timeline of events going from Hyman's first critique to the Joint Communique to further experiments to subsequent critiques and finally to present day. It seems an abbreviated timeline would be appropriate in this section. Tunsa (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)