Talk:Parapsychology

Archives

Archive 1 Nov 6, 2004

Archive 2 Nov 29, 2006

Archive 3 Feb 24, 2007

Archive 4 March 05, 2007

Archive 5 March 24, 2007

Archive 6 May 26, 2007

Archive 7 June 29, 2007

Archive 8 July 03, 2007

Archive 9 July 17, 2007

Archive 10 August 6, 2007

Archive 11 October 28, 2007

Please discuss changes

I just wanted to remind everyone that the parapsychology article is currently a featured article and that this was achieved through a long process of delicate consensus building. Certain wording choices were discussed at length on many sections, particularly the intro. If we could discuss major changes in wording that shift the tone of the article, or changes the meaning, on the talk page before installing the wording choice, it would go a long way to preserving the featured article status many editors worked hard in achieving. Thanks. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes recently made are POV, and should be reverted pending discussion. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that serious changes will be discussed before insertion and that reversions will be discussed as well. The first step in losing FA status is edit wars. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has already become POV. It needs reversion or tags. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Or discussion of what's POV about it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right, Neal. Simply declaring that the article is POV without explanation is not a discussion. ScienceApologist 18:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin, Please elaborate on what is POV about it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I could do without the "reported" in the first sentence. There's the tired argument of no qualifier necessary, but it's also inaccurate. Most parapsychological work occures in a lab where they go "looking for" psi phenomena. It's not investigating reports like your pop culture paranormal investigations / debunkery. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence says "Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of reported paranormal psychological phenomena." How would you rephrase it? I do agree that some sort of qualifier is necessary as simply saying the "Study of Paranormal psychological phenomena" would be saying the phenomena exist, technically. How about:"Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of psychological phenomena paranormal thought by some to have paranormal origins." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think of parapsychology as being "the attempted academic study of purported paranormal phenomena". It isn't just the "study" because sometimes the people who try to "study" it are unsuccessful in their aims. ScienceApologist 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well generally it's defined as the "study" of what are thought to be paranormal phenomena. If there is no genuine "studying" going on then it wouldn't really be parapsychology but something else. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Take, for example, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research center. They attempted to study certain mind-matter connections but had various levels of success convincing others that they were actually studying such phenomena rather than running random number generators into the noise of machine limitations. That parapsychologists claim to study paranormal phenomena is obvious. That they actually study it is debatable. ScienceApologist 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How would you phrase the first sentence? We don't want to sound too redundant or confusing by saying something like "the supposed study of supposed paranormal psychological phenomena" as that's quite encyclopedic. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Like this: Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the attempted academic study of purported paranormal phenomena. ScienceApologist 20:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Attempted" is sooo POV. I can't go over and post President Bush attempts to be a good president in his article for the same reasons it'd be POV here.

Here's the oft-repeated discussion that comes up on Wikipedia regarding qualifiers and the paranormal:

Statement 1: Paranormal phenomena needs a qualifier because the phenomena may not exist.

Statement 2: Paranormal is itself the qualifier because the controversy over the existence of the phenomena is wrapped up in the term itself, which means among other things "not possible according to science". In other words, paranormal already means it may not exist and adding more qualifiers is beating a dead horse and possibly bad writing.

Both sides have been argued, and there was even an arbitration surrounding it where the arbs suggested the logic behind Statement 2 is sound. But none of that matters, here's why:

The Frequently Asked Questions of the Parapsychological Association reads: In addition, in scientific practice many of the basic terms used above are accompanied by qualifiers such as "apparent," "putative," and "ostensible." This is because many claims supposedly involving psi may not be due to psi, but to normal psychological or misinterpreted physical reasons.

Parapsychologists, or at least the notable organization in the field, extends the argument that the phenomena may or may not exist (the controversy already in the term paranormal) to the statement that the phenomena may or may not be paranormal. It is ostensibly paranormal. By this logic (and the PA source), I see nothing wrong with saying "ostensible paranormal phenomena".

Ostensible is not a qualifier on whether or not paranormal phenomena exists. It's a qualifier on whether the phenomena parapsychologists study is actually paranormal. Since the leading parapsychological association agrees, we can assume parapsychologists will agree. Many parapsychologists don't even like the word "paranormal" anyway. Since it's not making a statement on whether the paranormal exists, paranormalists really have no complaint basis, and it isn't contrary to the arbitration. Since it makes no statement that paranormal phenomena does exist, skeptics have no complaint basis either.

Everyone may not agree with "ostensible paranormal phenomena", but there's really no reason why they shouldn't. It fits, is accurate, and is something parapsychologists and skeptics can agree on, for different reasons of course : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ostensible is fine with me, but simply saying that "Parapsychology is the study of..." without qualifying the term study is sooo POV in my opinion. This is in part due to the historical nature of parapsychology. There was a time in psychology's infancy when parapsychology and psychology were almost indistinguishable. Indeed, in some people's living memory, "parapsychology" was much more integrated into mainstream academic study than it is today. Today, this is much less the case: very few academic departments are content to allow for study of ostensibly paranormal phenomena. ScienceApologist 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well discussing it is good. Either way is fine with me as most readers don't really examine the exact wording of the sentences and base their world views on that. Though accuracy is our final goal. I want to encourage discussion and not edit warring. Let's not make any edits concerning this until there is a consensus reached. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That will be fine, as soon as the recent non-consensus changes are reverted. Then we can discuss. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, you haven't explained what's POV about those changes. Here's the diffs between your revert and the current version [1]. Can you explain what you think is POV about the red items? I don't like the qualifier "reported" because it's bad wording and wrong because most parapsych work occurs in the lab. Beyond "reported", the only other issue I have with it is the line that reads "of such poor quality and so poorly controlled that...". I don't have a problem with the neutrality of it (it's in the criticism section). The problem I have with it is that the wording is exclamatory and not encyclopedic. It's not "poor quality", it's "such poor quality". It's not "poorly controlled", it's "so poorly controlled". I think these sort of degree based statements are unencyclopedic, even in a criticism section. Like above when I said "attempted is sooo POV". In a sober, encyclopedic article, that would be worded simply as "attempted is POV". None of the red-lined items are so far off NPOV that it requires a revert, in my opinion. Some of the changes are basic grammar changes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, it isn't accurate: in modern times, it is mainly the study in the lab, not reports.

This:

"Many analysts of parapsychology hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of such poor quality and so poorly controlled that the entire field of parapsychology has produced no conclusive results whatsoever."

has simply made it more negative to parapsychology.

This:

"critic of parapsychology and has demonstrated that magic tricks can account for some apparently psychic phenomena.]]"

now needs sourcing or attribution, as demonstration needs a source much more than a belief. And it biases the article toward skepticism. I'm not sure how this plays out in an article about parapsychology. I believe it it technically accurate, but in an article which deals mainly with modern parapsychology, to switch suddenly to the whole field of the "psychic" leaves the reader thinking that Randi has demonstrated that some things which modern parapsychologists study can be replicated by magic. Thus, the edit is highly controversial, and tends to ruin the balance of NPOV.

And this:

"The European Journal of Parapsychology is independently published."

is irrelevant unless someone is trying to make it more and more clear how fringe parapsychology is. There is nothing technically wrong with it, but it is an example of POV pushing.

Now, some of this edit is understandable. I don't think it improved the article much, if any, but some of it is not POV. Overall, however, the intention and result was to bias the article.

There is another, really more important issue: the edits were knowingly non-consensual. They were forced into the article against consensus. This is against the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let the editors who made the changes respond to the other items, but I wanted to comment on the "EJoP is independently published" one because I thought that was a weird edit at first as well. It's not. I went looking for the publishers and was going to add that to the section when it occured to me that the reason it says "independently published" is because all the other items in that section go along the lines of "Such and such organization and their publication such and such". The EJoP is not a publication by an association where the others are, so it actually reads right. Not POV or a dig at fringeness. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was "mainstream" dropped from this line: "To date, no evidence has been accepted by the >[mainstream]< scientific community as supporting the existence of paranormal phenomena." That's POV. Whoever made that change is pushing the point of view that parapsychologists (or other scientists who accept some of the data) are not a part of the scientific community, at all. It also used to read "not gained widespread acceptance". What happened to that wording? These wording changes are the significant shifts in tone I was talking about when I started this section. The earlier tone had gained consensus and FA status and significant changes like that threaten the status and stability -- and this is the intro section.

Let's start with that. Anyone opposed with changing "reported" to "ostensibly" and reinserting "mainstream" where it was removed. If so, why? Especially on the "mainstream" part. That was consensus. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

James Randi is noted for demonstrating that magic tricks can approximate what many believe to be paranormal phenomena. That's why he's the amazing Randi, after all. There's nothing POV about stating this up front. ScienceApologist 11:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the "mainstream" back as I agree with Nealparr on that note. Some folks who support parapsychology but are still scientists are considered "fringe" not non-scientists. Utts for example or others. Thus "mainstream" scientific community clarifies as some fringe parts of the scientific community accept parapsychology.

Finding a source that Randi has demonstrated that magic tricks can account for apparent paranormal abilities would not be hard.

The sentence "Many analysts of parapsychology hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of such poor quality and so poorly controlled that the entire field of parapsychology has produced no conclusive results whatsoever." is acceptable as it's just stating what the critics say. This is what most of them say. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Finding a source that Randi has demonstrated that magic tricks can account for apparent paranormal abilities would not be hard. Any person who has seen Randi's show and reviewed it is a source. There are plenty of reviews on the internet. Note that the caption doesn't say that Randi has demonstrated that all paranormal phenomena are done with the techniques of magic tricks, only that it is possible to use magic tricks to mimic paranormal phenomena. What, praytell, is so goddamn controversial about that statement? ScienceApologist 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The only content I have a slight problem with now is the Randi caption: it is of course indisputably true. It's just that the section on criticism is talking about parapsychology, and I think it might be hard to find a good enough source for saying that Randi has demonstrated that aspects of parapsychology -as opposed to psychic phenomena- can be accounted for by magic. The implication is that the psychic phenomena we're talking about are the ones parapsychologists hold up as evidence of psi. That's not true. I suggest just having the caption read "Stage magician and debunker James Randi is a well-known critic of parapsychology." This is not a huge deal, though.

The main issue with the article is the way it was edited: by force. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. You are trying to weasel your way out of Randi's deft criticism of the existence of psychic phenomena. Revert. ScienceApologist 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit question

Hi! I am a member of the WP:LoCE and am copyediting your article. This paragraph in the "Psychokinesis on random number generators" section confused me:

Major meta-analyses of the RNG database have been published every few years since appearing in the journal Foundations of Physics in 1986.[19] PEAR founder Robert G. Jahn and his colleague Brenda Dunne say that the effect size in all cases was found to be very small, but consistent across time and experimental designs, resulting in an overall statistical significance. The most recent meta-analysis was published in Psychological Bulletin, along with several critical commentaries.[20][21] The meta-analysis was composed of 380 studies, which some researchers say has produced an overall effect size that was very small but statistically significant.

Was the 1986 research performed by Jahn and Dunne, and did the recent meta-analysis support their findings? The paragraph's second and fourth sentences are nearly identical, but I wasn't sure how to correct it without losing or changing your intended meaning. Galena11 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good question. Yeah, when it says "effect size," it means positive effect size, that is to say, it supports the hypothesis that psi exists. And the effect was "statistically significant," meaning that there was, at most, a 5% chance that it could have happened by accident. Nice work Galena. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Guild homeHow to copy editTemplatesBarnstarsParticipantsCoordinators

RequestsDrivesBlitzesMailing listNewsletters

Talk:Parapsychology/Top

Talk:Parapsychology/Left panel

Talk:Parapsychology/Right panel

POV drift

for reasons i have explained elsewhere, i try to avoid substantial edits on this and related subjects. I have however restored a few wording that are more expressive of NPOV. figure legends are not the place for what needs more extended arguments. Randi has certainly shown that some purported psychic phenomena can be explained by trickery, he may believe that all are, and he may even be right, but that is something much harder to actually demonstrate & a figure legend is not the place to make overly expansive statements. I also changed one or two similar instances.

I think accepted compromise wording should be left alone, especially in legends and lede sections of featured articles. DGG (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I wish you didn't avoid substantial edits on this and related subjects, but then you wouldn't be DGG. Oh well. ScienceApologist 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. DGG really is able to get along with everyone. And the edits are excellent. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical status of the subject

There is an issue in this article of framing: that is parapsychology had more status in the past than it currently enjoys today. That it is not a recognized field within the academy needs to be addressed forthrightly in this article. Currently, the lead sounds a bit like we are saying that there are currently mainstream research groups that conduct research in parapsychology. We all know that this is false. So we should, I believe, reword the lead and the relevant parts of the article to indicate that while the field had prominent adherents and proponents in the past, it has been steadfastly moving more and more toward and past the edges of academia. Today, it is highly contentious to associate the term with the standard accidents of academic scholarship including such terms as "study, "theories", "models", "experiments", "hypotheses", "tests", "observations", and "resesarch". I submit that these words need to be looked at and used only in the most judicious fashion throughout this article. Currently, the article is a bit too accommodating in these regards. ScienceApologist 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider the matter: first from where do you want to source this? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing can be done by means of careful analysis of where parapsychology is actually treated as an academic institution. There are a number of interesting essays on the internet about this. Here's one I chose at random: [2]

What I suggest is twofold:

1. Noting parapsychology's denigration more explicitly. After all, even the groups which support it have statements decrying their marginalization. We can use those very statements to prove the point that parapsychology is so marginalized away from academia.
2. Since parapsychology is so marginalized, we should be very careful about including any terminology which might mislead the reader into thinking that there is academic acceptance of the subject beyond what actually exists.

ScienceApologist 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article deserves no more and no less a treatment than science-related mainstream periodicals give it. Here's a current one from Nature (Feb. 2007) [3]. It uses the type of academic scholarship words that SA wants looked at and possibly removed. The Nature article is a recent article, mainstream, science-related, and specifically covers denigration. The article at Wikipedia was written in a similar, fair tone. Wikipedia should not assume a -more- negative tone than the tone mainstream science actually takes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And to address SA's comment that it has denigrated so much that it has been kicked out of academia, there are currently mainstream research groups that conduct research in parapsychology, in Britain, according to the article. Quote: "Parapsychologist Deborah Delanoy at the University of Northampton suspects that the field is stronger in Britain because researchers tend to work in conventional psychology departments, and also do studies in 'straight' psychology to boost their credibility and show that their methods are sound. "We're seen to be in the same business as other psychologists," she says." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

But this basically proves my point that the subject is marginalized to the point of obscurity. The PEAR lab closed down, fergodsakes. I think being clear that the subject is more accepted in Great Britain is a fine statement to have in our article, but right now we are too accommodating of the POV that it represents a legitimate academic subject. ScienceApologist 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a run-around-in-circles conversation about parapsychology's legitimacy as an academic subject. That's been addressed time and time again. For one thing, it can be measured objectively without inserting opinion. Either there are academic programs or there are not. The article clearly represents how many there are. The words you're talking about removing ("study", "theories", "models", "experiments", "hypotheses", "tests", "observations", and "resesarch") are the words used in the sources (including the critical sources). The writers who wrote the sources were fully aware of how widespread parapsychology is when they wrote them. Purposefully removing them is original research in spirit and letter. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're also talking about a major rewrite on an article that has gone through several peer reviews, several point of view disputes and eventual consensuses, was a major focus of an arbitration, and has eventually gained featured article status, just to represent the topic more negatively than it already is (when it already has a lengthy criticism section detailing your major points), and the method you want to use to do that is original research? That doesn't seem very productive when the goal of Wikipedia editing is to produce featured articles. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, my goal is to fairly characterize the subject. There are two points I find salient:

1. The marginalization of parapsychology
2. The more positive reception of the subject in the UK.

That's it.

ScienceApologist 20:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Both are covered here: [4] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gentleman, it is only in the United States where funding for parapsychology has waned. Even though the Pear lab closed down this year, two more popped up in Europe (at Lund and Coventry). Regardless, the decrease of funding in the US is not a symptom of parapsychology being 'less academic'. Funding has waned for NASA since the 70's too, but does that make their work less scientific? Science Apologist, if you want to fairly characterize the subject of academic parapsychology, I suggest that you investigate the references included in the present parapsychology article more thoroughly (the ones from Psychological Bulletin, British Journal of Psychology, and Foundations of Physics make particularly good starting points). There you will find mainstream academic sources using the very words that you are attempting censor from this article. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The PEAR article in the Foundations of physics is just about the crappiest journal reference I can imagine. I would recommend discounting anyone who publishes as such as an outright crank. I'm not a psychologist so I cannot comment on how inclusions happened in the other two. ScienceApologist 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that your outright dismissal of scientific discourse that doesn't gel with your point of view isn't just limited to parapsychology. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Riiight. So anyway, the point is that the amateurish and poorly vetted sources that try to indicate some academic rigor for this subject are themselves highly problematic and quite obviously controversial. We are confined by neutrality to make sure that readers know how fringe and marginalized the so-called "field" is. ScienceApologist 15:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that these sources are "amateurish and poorly vetted" is simply your uniformed opinion. Now, I am not physicist so I'm not sure about the status of Foundations of Physics, but the Psychological Bulletin is one one of the most widely circulated journals published by the American Psychological Association. The British Journal of Psychology is it's European counterpart. These are both well-established and well-respected publications in the field of psychology. We've already stated in the article that parapsychology is a fringe science and that is has its critics. But being 'fringe' does not mean that it lacks academic rigor. This article has received its Featured Article status because it already satisfies Wikipedia policies and presents a balanced view of a controversial subject. Please stop trying to impose your apologetics on this article. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Being fringe does mean that a subject lacks academic rigor simply because the more eyes on a subject the better refined the argumentation. Claiming otherwise is making assumptions about the abilities of parapsychologists to commit feats of academic prowess without having the exposure and indeed the critical eyes cast upon them necessary to a healthy discipline. Effectively you are saying that because these people who believe in spooky powers of the mind are able to conduct research and coordinate projects while simultaneously being marginalized they must somehow be more reliable then any other random academic who manages to publish things that aren't routinely denigrated and dismissed out-of-hand. There is simply no other academic subject for which this audacious claim can apply. The terrible methodology and outright inability for parapsychologists to get themselves published MOST OF THE TIME needs to be made explicitly clear in the article. Wikipedia should not be entranced by publication bias. Just because some third-rate researchers happened to be able to get a couple of papers published in respected journals doesn't lend imprimatur to the subject. We need to be careful that this article doesn't become an appeal to authority. Right now, it operates as such by focusing too much on the "respectable publications" which themselves are not all that impressive. ScienceApologist 18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was built from mainstream sources and journals in order to satisfy the notability guidelines at Wikipedia. They are not there to "prove" that parapsychology is mainstream, only to satisfy editors who demanded that we not reference "fringe" publications in the article. I wish that I had the luxury of time to waste responding to all of the factual errors in your responses line by line. Your sweeping generalizations about what you think parapsychology is only reveal that you are ignorant of the history of and the depth of this field. Please find someplace else to espouse your fictions and promote your materialist agenda. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is built from weighting some sources more than other sources by stretching the intention of notability and sourcing requirements way out of whack. The article adopts a preposterous perspective that links parapsychology to other academic fields when it is, in fact, often considered an embarrassment to many who are associated with its practitioners. Not only should we not reference fringe publications, we also shouldn't pander to parapsychologists themselves since primary sources are notoriously unreliable in terms of sourcing. The best overviews and secondary sources we have on the subject are clear: parapsychology is at best a highly contentious subject and at worst something which has no respectability at all within the context of academia. Simply stated, the people who really are passionate true believers in this subject have held articles like this hostage for too long. We need dispassionate and reasonable evaluations that let the reader understand how marginalized and ridiculed a lot of the so-called "research" that goes on this so-called "field" in order to have an article worthy of FA status. ScienceApologist 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommends the usage of secondary sources and journal articles for science articles and that's what we have done here. I suspect that the 'best sources' are the ones that you happen to agree with, not ones that are necessarily neutral. And as I should've corrected above, parapsychologists are not 'true believers' in the phenomena that they study. Enjoy creating your straw men and knocking them down, Science Apologist. Dispassionate and reasonable evaluations are very much needed for these articles, but they should be made by people without an agenda to promote, and as your user name suggests, you are not without an agenda.

Apologists: individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus of Wikipedia is to use sources well so as to not engage in original research which has not been accomplished at this article. The best sources are those sources which characterize and contextualize the entirety of this peculiar endeavor. It is quite possible that we may find on careful evaluation that distinguishing between paranormal research and parapsychology is, in fact, a neologistic enterprise meant to lend more credibility onto a subject which is, frankly, usually only found on trashy television shows and sensationalist tabloids. This may be, in fact, the place where we should be getting most of our sources since that is the place where the subject has its greatest degree of visibility. You would do well to read Wikipedia's neutrality policy as well as the bits on article ownership. Like it or not, I'm here to stay and you're going to have to deal with me whether you like my name or not.

And speaking of names, two can play at your little game: Ventola: individuals systematically playing football as a striker. Ventola has been characterized showing real star potential including scoring against eventual European Cup winners Manchester United. --ScienceApologist 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that trashy televisions show and sensationalist tabloids are the only places where you've gotten your information about this field. Read a book sometime. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You suspect incorrectly. ScienceApologist 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the source in question. The "Foundations of physics" is a well reputed scientific journal, The study in question has been cited 47 times and both of the authors are also reliable and reputable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the journal, per se, only the attempted conclusions implicitly made in this article about the supposed mainstream status of the research. As is reported in the Nature article about the closing of PEAR, the reason that they only were able to publish in the mainstream once in the last 20-some-odd years is that, per admission of the authors, they had a hard time justifying their work to most external reviewers. ScienceApologist 18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Specifically. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with tone

The major problem that this article has is that it presumes that because something is published in a respectable journal or because a proponent has a position at a major research institution that therefore the subject itself must derive respectability. This is simply not the case. We need to be clear that parapsychology is on the extreme fringe of academic legitimacy and is not the "respectable arm" or paranormal research as many here at Wikipedia seem to think. What we have are various scientists who have interest in a rather weird belief that has, as of yet, had no corroboration that there are psychic energies observably at work in the world. I will shortly list the wordings and weightings of this article that are leaning the article too heavily to this peculiar original research point-of-view. ScienceApologist 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll need a lot of sources more reliable than the current ones that specify that parapsychology is extremely fringe in order for us to give the tone that it is such. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the best secondary and tertiary sources you have are relegated to support roles in our article when they should be the starting point or, indeed, the basis for our article. For example, Bauer's 1984 overview on Criticism and Controversy in Parapsychology [5] is a source that explicitly states:

"First of all even the question of competence is in dispute. Who is entitled to be considered as a 'parapsychologists and vice versa, who is allowed to act as a critic in this area? It is not difficult to see that a homogeneous group of parapsychologists characterized by certain qualifications does not exist. The necessity of a curriculum preferably on an academic level and of professionalisation is well recognized (Shapin and Coly, 1976; Johnson, 1977); but without an organisational basis, financial support, and the corresponding acceptance by the scientific community, realisation is only possible on a limited scale. In short, there are no authorities in parapsychology in the sense of representatives of an accepted body of opinions, who are supported by most scientists involved."

This article is only used to support one claim in the criticism section when it properly could provide an adequate and neutral framing for the entire article.

ScienceApologist 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well make some edits so we can judge whether or not they will work out. I don't know what sort of changes you would make so I think it would be best to make them just so we can see and if they are disputed they can be changed to be improved or reverted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a work criticizing the status of the field almost 25 years ago is going to provide a framework for a neutral discussion of the field today. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

True, it's actually in a worse position today than it was 25 years ago. I'm going to put a tone template on the article and begin to make edits. ScienceApologist 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No template is needed if you are planning to make the edits. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's true. I'm still gathering sources and trying to see where to go with all this, though. I would appreciate keeping the template up to see if it can generate some publicity. I may start an RfC or post on the fringe noticeboard as well. ScienceApologist 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue with peer review

I always seem to be the bearer of bad news, but there is a major problem with this article as I currently see it:

While peer review journals are wonderful, we need to be careful that focusing too much on peer-reviewed articles is weighing the position of this subject too much towards academia where it clearly doesn't belong. The fact of the matter is that parapsychology is ultimately an amateurs' game: a sideshow that makes inroads into academia about as much as racial intelligence theories or holocaust revisionism or any other fringe perspective you care to name that has notable academics supporting it. Just because something is published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean that the paper is somehow representative of the subject it purports to be about. In fact, quite to the contrary, the paper is more likely to be relevant to the editorial philosophy of the journal itself. That is, unless there is a respected peer-reviewed journal within parapsychology that has mainstream recognition, trying to claim legitimacy by citing the pittance of research that made it into the noise of respectable journals is not a very sound way of organizing an article.

What's to be done? We need to make a collection of overview secondary sources that describe what parapsychology is and how it is/is not related to the relevant mainstream fields. From there we can describe the major parts of parapsychology and begin to evaluate what "studies" are of importance to believers and what studies have received note in the mainstream. I think that what we will probably find is no consensus among believers since there is no formal process for vetting and very few parapsychology ideas/research studies which have made even a passing impression on the mainstream. PEAR received its notability perhaps mostly out of bemusement rather than any serious consideration of the ideas it was purporting, for example. I imagine if we carefully decide what ideas are notable and what ideas are too obscure we may find the article looks quite a bit different. This is fair warning.

ScienceApologist 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The most relevant and most reliable sources are those published in reputable peer reviewed journals, this is academia. Parapsychology has been studied and investigated by all sorts of people, not simply amateurs. We can't just remove relevant peer reviewed studies. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But the most important people who study parapsychology are the amateurs. Who gets the most funding, sponsors the most projects, and indeed conducts the most investigations in parapsychology? Is it the academy? No. It's amateurs, tabloid journalists, and sensationalist television talk shows. This is what distinguishes this subject from the academy. It is fundamentally a popular subject: not an academic one. In fact, the academic sources in this case probably deserve less weight than the popular sources. ScienceApologist 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that parapsychology is ultimately an amateurs' game: a sideshow that makes inroads into academia about as much as racial intelligence theories or holocaust revisionism or any other fringe perspective you care to name that has notable academics supporting it.

You are wrong. There are a plethora of academic departments studying parapsychology, offering salaries to full-time parapsychologists, and publishing in respected journals. What you have stated above is a straw man argument. This article represents the consensus of many editors coming from many different backgrounds who were able to put aside their differences and create a neutral article using the best sources. You want to take it down and reorganize it to promote your position? Good luck. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There aren't a "plethora of academic departments". That's an outrageous and unfounded claim that is not supported by even the most sympathetic of sources which decry the marginalization of the subject within the academy. Just because a few weirdos take a salary from a university and have tenure doesn't mean that the subject suddenly is mainstream and acceptable. It quite plainly isn't. Frankly, the consensus of the editors here seems skewed toward an accommodation of a small group of people who are clamoring for mainstream recognition of their pet subject (like yourself). I recognize that you have familiarity with your beliefs, but you are clearly very biased in your advocacy of a legitimacy for this subject. ScienceApologist 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should've said 'academic laboratories' instead of departments. There are no departments of parapsychology, just psychology departments with parapsychology labs. And it's not just 'weirdos' with tenure. Some of my friends have been hired into these labs directly after earning their PhD. The article already recognizes that this is a tiny field at the fringes of academia. You don't know me at all, so you couldn't possibly know anything about my beliefs. And I highly suspect that you have NOT read my latest study, so I doubt that you know anything about my pet subjects either. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Amateurs aren't reliable and I wouldn't even call amateur investigations real investigations. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Amateurs are reliable for subjects that are amateur. I submit that this subject is mainly an amateur endeavor supported mostly by media presentations and the paranormal investigators and the like who charge the general public for their services. Certainly the academic side of this subject is not where the most action is! ScienceApologist 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

SA asked me to comment. Historically, in the 20th century, PP was an attempt--in my opinion a good faith serious attempt-- to find a scientific basis for psychic phenomena. As most of us see things, it failed to do so--which is not saying there could be no basis, but the failure (at least in the eyes of other scientists) has decreased interest in this approach. As SA says correctly, those now interested are rarely those who really do attempt in a professional manner to find scientific evidence. But to avoid confusion, I think it would be well to keep this article concentrated on the past and present attempted science, and use a term like psychic phenomena for the popular views of these subjects. DGG (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true: it is what the ArbCom recognized, when it made the distinction between academic and popular parapsychology. Did you know that Sylvia Browne says she is a parapsychologist? We could rename this "Parapsychology (academic)," but the article is really already on the academic part, so I really see no particular need. Also, it would lead to redirecting "Parapsychology" to "Psychic." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this sentiment, but think that we need to decide how to best "concentrate" the article. This needs to be done carefully because the subject has changed in respectability over the years. Historical contexts are provided by sources such as Bauer to good effect. Perhaps we can do a "then and now" kind of development. What do others think? ScienceApologist 20:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true DGG: it is what the ArbCom recognized, when it made the distinction between academic and popular parapsychology. Did you know that Sylvia Browne says she is a parapsychologist? We could rename this "Parapsychology (academic)," but the article is really already on the academic part, so I really see no particular need. Also, it would lead to redirecting "Parapsychology" to "Psychic." Academic parapsychology is not less respectable now than it was, as far as I know. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that indicate that Sylvia Browne is not a parapsychologist? As it is, I think she may be one of the most famous since the title is basically self-applied (see Bauer). ScienceApologist 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne is not a member of the Parapsychological Association and she has never published research on a parapsychological topic in a peer-reviewed journal. The terms 'psychic' and 'parapsychologist' are not synonyms. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. Are the people who ran PEAR members of the Parapsychological Association? Is that affiliation necessary for what makes a parapsychologist? ScienceApologist 15:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Minus the PA, that's about right. SA, you don't want to go into secondary sources as much as you think you do. We could, of course, use a textbook on parapsychology or Radin's work, and put in some stuff by Alcock. But I doubt you'd want to go there: it would make the article more pro-parapsychology. Yes, you are right that if we really delved into what studies are notable to an article on parapsychology, we would come up with a different article- one which had a lot of content you would feel weighted the article in the direction of parapsychology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping to go for overview articles that look at the entire discipline rather than something which deals with the subject. Framing and all. ScienceApologist 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

FA plea

It took hours and hours of work to get this article to FA status. I haven't read through the massive amounts of comments above, but please let's drop these templates, stop edit warring, and discuss it. People get paid for their work at Wikipedia in having the satisfaction of getting an article to featured status. Please consider that and stop the disruption and let's work it out. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm done wasting my time when ONE editor can disrupt the whole damn thing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the frustration that many of us have experiencing with regards to Martinphi. Consider unwatching the page for a week and coming back later, which is what I did (in fact, i have not had parapsychology watchlisted since September). Please don't leave the project, though. Antelan ^talk 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you consider SA to be disruptive. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that he is saying that at all. Shot info 01:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what he meant to say. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, that type of intentional misinterpretation of sources (the source being me, in this case) is pathognomonic of your broader editing techniques. Antelan ^talk 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Maybe that's not what you were thinking, but it is a valid inference from what you said: you stated that what Nealparr was experiencing with SA was similar to what others experienced with me. Nealparr had talked about disruption. You were, thus, calling me disruptive, while at the same time admitting that in your opinion what SA has done is similar to what I have done- in other words, in your opinion, we're both disruptive. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

By that same syllogism, you are now admitting that you are disruptive. Your choice is either to agree that you are disruptive, or you to admit that your inference is erroneous. Antelan ^talk 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I merely observed you. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but you're misinterpreting your observation and then informing the observed that this interpretation of his actions is actually what he was doing, rather than what the observed actually was doing. Shot info 07:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, since I'm leaving I can say what I want to say : ) I'm not leaving because of ScienceApologist. He may think he has to fight pov-pushing, but his high-science or extreme-skepticism or whatever it's called is just pov-pushing on the other end of the spectrum. It's not mainstream at all. It's the other side and just as fringe. Extreme points of view like that are a dime a dozen, and there's nothing special about it. It is disruptive, but it's completely mundane. Remarkable are the editors who actually try to build consensus, and in this article the consensus was to build it like other mainstream encyclopedias, none of which do anything like what ScienceApologist wants. He doesn't feel it is negative enough, and so he's trying to tear apart the consensus already in place here in an effort to make the article more negative. That doesn't piss me off. That's normal, mundane, boring. What ticks me off here is that this isn't a fledgling article. It's an article built over a year's worth of time. My time (and yours and yours and yours), not his. But if it wasn't him, it'd be someone else and I'm just not interested anymore. I'm a goal-orientated person. If the goal isn't to build consensus and achieve FA status, I personally don't see the point. I'm leaving, and not in a I'm-going-to-go-register-a-sock-puppet kind of way. It's technically a wikibreak, but I don't see how anything will change anytime soon. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus that we achieved with this article is remarkable and it will prevail. Don't let all of this barking scare you off. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Shot info 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by building consensus. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. Shot info —Preceding comment was added at 06:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As ScienceApologist once said, "I don't pretend to understand the quirkiness of a community that simultaneously has WP:AGF along with WP:SPADE, WP:CIV along with WP:DICK, WP:NPA along with WP:DE, and WP:CON with WP:IAR. It's a tightrope we all walk on." [6] Antelan ^talk 06:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

True that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Coupled with the concept of editing while on a serious wikibreak LOL!  :-) Shot info 06:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Or dropping digs in at someone while they're away, huh? : ) I'm done contributing. Doesn't mean I'm not going to respond to childish unnecessary comments. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If only the digs were dug while you where away, hmmm ;-). Remember, your the one who spat the dummy here. Have enough editors soothed away your troubles with enough "Please stay" pleas? Or perhaps you could just adopt a bit of WP:NAM coupled with a bit of WP:CHILL? :-) Shot info 06:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall ever talking to you in my comments nor being uncivil with ScienceApologist who knows exactly how I feel about his point of view, and knows I consider it extreme. So you can take all of your out-of-the-blue personal attacks and find some other place to post them. How about a little WP:NPA or WP:DICK? Save it for someone willing to put up with it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

-Sigh- But I'll also take that WP:CHILL and end on a good note. No hard feelings to anyone here (Shot Info, ScienceApologist, Antelan, etc.). I am a fan of Wikipedia (see my departing essay). It's just not for me. Good luck everyone. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you, but you have to admit, WP is resplendent with editors who get their knickers in a knot, and storm out of the building....then come back. I was just hoping you would be somewhat more original. Nevertheless, enjoy your wikibreak, but make it a wikibreak...no peaking now :-) (PS: note the emoticon). Shot info 10:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to cleanup a bit first. Honestly, I'm so busy IRL that I won't have time to peak : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's best to ease your way in. I edited the first few days when I took my 2 month wikibreak. It's like tapering off of a drug... Antelan ^talk 06:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone Tag

That tag needs to disappear. As Wikidudeman said above, it is inappropriate for Science Apologist to place a tag for edits that he plans to make himself. And his complaints are not specific enough for anybody else to do anything about them. (Unless of course, someone wants to draft a major rewrite wiping out all of the references peer-reviewed journals and featuring the efforts of psychics and ghost busters instead.) --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa, I understand what you're saying about that. The problem is that tags are the last resort for an editor. If after a while SA's contentions fail to persuade, then let's take it off. However, as I see it editors have a right to tag when in good faith they find that the article does not meet with their understanding of the Wikipedia rules. To revert tags is to completely silence an editor's influence on the article for the duration of, say, a mediation process, and I don't think that is appropriate. On the other hand, keeping it on forever is also not appropriate. But it can be left for a while. If the Arbitration Committee has failed to deal with SA, we will simply have to bend with the winds to the extent that we can without violating NPOV. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Last resort? I haven't see any effort to do anything here but complain. Nor has he cited the specific Wikipedia rules that this article is supposedly breaking. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The general consensus as of now seems to be that it is not necessary, and SA hasn't responded, even to my point that he'd be quite disappointed if we started doing as he says. I'll take it off, but in general I believe we need to give tags a lot of leeway. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no problems with editors adding tags as they wish on articles they wish to (it's called editing, regardless of the status of the article). However, after reviewing this, IMO, I can see that there are "issues" that perhaps need addressing but they can be addressed better (again IMO) by adding the tags into the appropropriate sections rather than at the top of the article. I suspect that SA is offline at the moment, and I will support his decision in adding in tags throughout the article to aid in editing, but not at the top. At least, not at the top without a comment in the talk page to let us know where to begin :-). Shot info 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)