Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Parapsychology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Requesting books for "further reading"

Does anyone have any books that would work well for the "further reading" section? Books that deal exclusively with parapsychology and are academic or through in their explanation of it. Pro, Neutral or anti parapsychology. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Cardeña, E., Lynn, S. J., & Krippner, S. (Eds.) (2000). Varieties of anomalous experience: Examining the scientific evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hansen, G. P. (2001). The Trickster and the Paranormal. Xlibris Corporation.

Irwin, H., & Watt, C. (2007). An Introduction to Parapscyhology. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.

Radin, D. (2006). Entangled minds: Extra-sensory experiments in a quantum reality. New York, NY: Paraview Pocket Books.

- All of these are good introductory texts that focus on academic parapsychology. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They're all already cited in the article body. Do you have any examples of others? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't they still go in the further reading list? Also, I notice that several books on your list don't deal 'exclusively' with parapsychology, specifically the Encyclopedias of Occultism and Parapsychology and Sagan's book. Randi's books also deal with subjects outside of parapsychology, though I think that Flim!Flam is a good one for the list. Here's a couple more suggestions:

Houran, J. & Lange, R. (Eds.) (2001), Hauntings and Poltergeists: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Brougton, R. (1992). Parapsychology: The Controversial Science. Ballantine Books.

--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rough draft of new Parapsychology article

Here is a rough draft of the new parapsychology article, it's located here

Click here for the rough draft.

Please remember that it's just a rough draft and will improve in the next few days as everyone here tells me of ways to improve it. Please do not edit the article yourself, I will be the intermediary and will edit what comes up for consensus until we all agree on it and we replace it on the actual page. This will prevent us from being bogged down with arguments. Right now there are 2 pages that need to be merged into it because it contains all of the information on them which is acceptable for wikipedia the pages are Rhine Research Center and Controversy in parapsychology. Please add constructive criticism of the article, ideas for what should be changed, removed or added to the article as well. Please be very specific in your criticisms and include the exact information needed for me to make the changes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be better to wait until the arbitration concerning several of the above editors pushing POV and so forth is over with? Trying to form a consensus on anything now when several people here may be banned soon, or at least have far more specific criteria on how to handle such topics to work under, seems a questionable use of time.DreamGuy 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference. The arbitration could last months more at this progress and I doubt any of the ones who would participate in this consensus would be banned from it anyway and it's just 1 or 2 of them. Read it and tell me what you think. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

At first blush it looks like an improvement, but I need to give it a better reading and look through the citations more thoroughly. DreamGuy, you may be right, but if some people are not too frustrated to continue trying, there's no reason not to try to proceed at this point. Ante lan ^talk 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to read through it tomorrow, but the pic of the ghost giving the guy a noogy is a nice touch : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Still going to have to read much of it tomorrow, but would you be willing to allow editors to add sources, based on the agreement that nothing is added, deleted, or altered?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer no one make any edits to it except me, who makes the edits based on consensus, even if they are small edits, because it will gradually build up and before we know it we'll have an edit war on the draft! You can make suggestions for where sources need to be and post the sources links here and I'll add them as soon as I can, we have plenty of time, remember. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough for me. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd should add this so that folks know I am paying attention, even if I'm not commenting. Like I said before, I'm going with a "good enough" on the draft if it means stability. They key part is "if it means stability", so my comments on other people's suggestions would be more to help resolve disputes. I wanted to post that as an explanation of why I'm not endorsing suggestions, in case people are looking for a consensus on their suggestions.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi's suggestions

This following isn't accurate, as, for instance, PK if it exists isn't "psychological," nor can we make the assumption a lot of other things are either.

Change this:

"Parapsychology is the study of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena"

To this:

"Parapsychology is the study of evidence for some types of paranormal phenomena"

Change this:

Proponents style parapsychology as a discipline compatible with science including schools of psychology, however those assertions and the results of parapsychological work have met with frequent opposition from critics. Historically, the field has attracted notable personalities in psychology including American psychologist and philosopher William James, among others.

Many scientists feel that parapsychological study is at best a fringe science because it involves research that doesn't fit within standard theoretical models accepted by mainstream science. A large portion of parapsychological work involves examining the statistical evidence for 'psi', a generic term described by parapsychologists as indicating anomalies that may be attributed to paranormal phenomena. However, an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one".[1] The controversy over parapsychological study is an example of the larger debate over the demarcation problem in science, which examines the boundaries commonly drawn between science and non-science. To date there have been no experimental results that have gained wide acceptance in the scientific community as valid evidence of paranormal phenomena.

To this:

Historically, the field has attracted notable personalities in psychology and other fields, including American psychologist and philosopher William James.

insert paragraph here

Inclusion of parapsychology as one of the sciences has met with frequent opposition from critics. Many scientists feel that parapsychology is at best a fringe science because it involves research that doesn't fit within standard theoretical models accepted by mainstream science. A large portion of modern parapsychological work involves examining the statistical evidence for 'psi', a generic term indicating possibly paranormal phenomena. An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one".[1]

The controversy over parapsychological study is an example of the larger debate over the demarcation problem in science, which examines the boundaries commonly drawn between science and non-science. To date there have been no experimental results that have gained wide acceptance in the scientific community as valid evidence of paranormal phenomena.

I'm mostly just trying to tighten things up, but I think it is more NPOV also. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what others think about that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A busy week ahead, so no in depth suggestions from me forthcoming. Seems an improvement, overall. According to Webster's, Parapsychology is a field of study concerned with the investigation of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena. --which appears to support this version. Might make all the Crit headers the same size so "Fraud" doesn't leap off the page. - LuckyLouie 04:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In the paragraphs selected by Martinphi, I think I prefer Wikidudeman's first paragraph (since it is more thorough in its explanation of the field's status) and Martinphi's remaining paragraphs (because their organization makes more sense to me). Ante lan ^talk 04:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember it's only about 55kb right now. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and read through the draft today July 2. I do pick up on things which are subtle POV, such as "Proponents style parapsychology" instead of "Parapsychologists say." I don't think that the article needs subtle skeptical or pro POV such as that (inserted by Nealparr who no doubt didn't intend it) to be stable.

One type of bias is repetition, which Nealparr mentions below- we only need to state each position once. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion diffs

Suggestions- not all diffs from the draft are show, because I'd make only these changes:

Here is a link to the draft itself: [1]

[6] Needs to include "and the"

All my suggested changes together:

[12]

Everything looks pretty good to me, except for a few things.

1. The definition of Haunting is way off in terms of NPOV, it once again takes a qualified statement and turns it in to a blanket statement of fact, thus giving subtle credence to paranormal explanations of "hauntings".

2. The standard definition of clairvoyance is more like the paranormal reception of information. From Webster's:

“

1 : the power or faculty of discerning objects not present to the senses

2 : ability to perceive matters beyond the range of ordinary perception

”

While telepathy is the transmission of information:

“

communication from one mind to another by extrasensory means

”

Other than that, it mostly looks like grammar cleanup and some pretty good clarifications of definition. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition changes were mainly trying to make them consistent with other Wikipedia articles- one of which has undergone significant POV changes without sourcing recently, so I went back a bit. If I recall right, there was one definition which was way off, but the others weren't too bad. The ones you quote aren't bad. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But really the whole thing should be presented from the perspective of parapsychologists. Then we wouldn't have to worry about mainstream sources or NPOV- we can just use the PA's definitions. So how about this (and we could change the definitions later):

[13] What do you think? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mostly good, but again, I strongly object to the definition of Haunting. It is not NPOV. It needs to say that the regular occurences are perceived as being of paranormal explanation, not that they are of paranormal origin. Simply saying that they positively are of paranormal origin is a violation of a neutral point of view on the topic. And about the generalization that the article should be presented from the perspective of parapsychologists...in a word, no. This is an independent, neutral encyclopedia, and it is our duty to present information about a subject from a neutral perspective. Writing an article from the perspective of its subject is the most fundamental violation of NPOV. What are you not understanding about the the definition of the phrase "neutral point of view". Because that's exactly, literally, what it means. Written from a point of view, aka a perspective, that is neutral. We don't just take any organization or individual's self-referential definitions of a subject as truth. We use reliable, independent sources. Using the PA definition is not independent, and is only given in instances when it is helpful to present what parapsychologists think on a subject. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I only said, make the definitions from the PA perspective. Use the PA glossary for the definitions of what parapsychologists study. Say that's what we are doing. We would have to change many of the definitions, I'm sure. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The definitions are always a point of dispute in this article. That's why I just did a quote in my earlier draft. There was some question of whether it was fair use, so then I just went with a comma separated list sans definition. Here's the real problem, even setting the skeptical view to the side, you're trying to define something without explanation. In other words, there can be dozens of feelings about what they are. Simple example, poltergeist. Long thought to be spirits, now thought to be psychokinetic activity coming from a family member. My method was to source it to an authority who actually believes in it. Solution by attribution : ) The scope section isn't actually that important to the article besides showing what they do and do not study. Doesn't actually need the definitions, these are (mostly) common terms and are linked to their pages. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying we should only use the definition used by those who believe in paranormal phenomena? That's an absurd violation of NPOV, not mention reliable, third party source verification. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should do anything at all. I'm fine with Wikidudeman's version, or the dictionary definition, or some other encyclopedia's definition, or anything where people call it a day and move on. But it's not really that absurd if you think about it, using a believer's definition and attributing it to them so others can agree or disagree. The reason it's not that absurd is because the other groups definition for all of them is "Something that doesn't exist". That's a really short definition, and you might as well leave the scope off. Besides, that view is already completely covered in the criticism section. Considering it is a scope, and that it is the scope of parapsychologists, and that what we are talking about is what they feel they are doing, it's not inappropriate to use the PA definitions and attribute it to them. It is a primary source section after all. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, the two views that this section deals with are:

"Parapsychologists engagage in the study of what they believe to be..."

and

"Parapsychologists are engaged in the study of nonexistant phenomena or normal processes misinterpreted..."

If you read the scope section on Wikidudeman's draft, both views are covered.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, but I would leave out the word 'believe'. When engaging in parapsychological (or any kind of scientific) research, what a researcher 'believes' about the phenomena is largely irrelevant. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

VAnTucky: WP:ATT. To others, I'll go with the consensus. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Attribution is not license to contribute POV definitions of a subject. Just bc you say, cite the Bible, doesn't allow you to change the definition of homosexuality to something like: an immoral sexual lifestyle. Not only must you attribute information to sources, but they must be independent, reliable third-party sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr's suggestions

In the "Scope" section, "According to" needs the source because it's attributed.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First line "Parapsychology is..." has historically been a point of edit wars, so whichever version settled on would need a source. Might want to start with LL's suggestion above (Webster) and go from there. Oh, and second line needs source since it's a quote. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Under "Ganzfeld", the 32% loses context without the 25% chance expectation that's sourced from here on page 387, left column, towards the bottom. When I read that I think, oh 32% out of 100%, what's the big deal? The controversy centers around the belief that statistically it should be right around 25%, and that 32% is statistically significant. It still reads as the interpretation of the researchers even when the 25% chance expectation is included, just adds context. And with that I'll call it a night. But I didn't see anything that I'd complain about from the beginning to there. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Nealparr here - even if this does border on OR, without the explanation of expectations by chance, the number is totally without meaning. Plus the explanation is so facile that it shouldn't really be contentious. Ante lan ^talk 13:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[I've read through to the criticism section so far. I haven't read that part yet, but since the portion above it is based on the previous version, I thought I'd go ahead and comment on that part of it. There's a few changes that I personally wouldn't have made as they weren't necessary. I feel they have subtle effects on the neutrality but if it means a stable article, I really don't care. They seem to be more a matter of wording preference and there's no substantial shift in meaning. I won't even bother pointing out any of them because it would basically be nitpicking. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)]

[Don't need to read through the criticism section thoroughly as it's obviously just a merger. I personally feel that the intro to the section can be summarized (like how many different ways can you say critics believe the experiments are flawed?), but it is a merger of the Controversy article and that's what the Controversy article said, so there it is. All my comments would be stylistic and the issue was neutrality, so I don't have any complaints. I'll continue to point out where things need to be sourced or if there's something that doesn't make sense, but I don't have any actual objections to this draft if it leads to stability. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)]

Great. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would move the second paragraphy under "Selection bias" to the top of "Criticism of misuse of meta-analysis". That text is a critique of using statistics as evidence for the paranormal, so it would be a misuse of statistics. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Draft intro concerns

I felt this might get lost, so I'm reposting it here. "Pseudoscience" is not necessary in the intro section where it summarizes the criticisms because it's not a real criticism (more like a conclusion based on criticisms) and because we can be more diplomatic (for stability and neutrality). We can summarize the criticisms without using that word. This is what I posted in response to VanTucky who said that a summarization of the criticism section is that it is a pseudoscience:

The summary of the criticism section is that critics feel that it is a failed, deprecated, or flawed endeavor because it lacks a framework that would make it sucessful, or a methodology that is convincing. This is a stark contrast from an outright pseudoscience that makes no effort whatsoever to be scientific but claims it is based on science, like astrology. That's all rhetoric, though. For the purposes of Wikipedia, pseudoscience is a pejorative and specific guidelines were written up because of this [Pseudoscience] ArbCom. It's a criticism, but not a particularly notable one considering some apply the term to all of psychology or anything that's not a part of the natural sciences. It sort of loses meaning. The point is that it's not necessary for the intro and that we can be more diplomatic.

I would support a phrasing in the intro that read something like "Critics feel that it is a failed, deprecated, or flawed endeavor because it lacks a framework that would make it sucessful, or a methodology that is convincing," but I can't in good conscience support the contentious word pseudoscience. I think it's fine for the criticism section, but not for the intro. My phrasing above is nice, short, and to the point and has many sources that can be used for it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In the WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience guidelines, psychoanalysis is listed as an example of a theory "which some critics allege to be pseudoscience". The entire intro to the psychoanalysis article consists of the following:

Psychoanalysis is a family of psychological theories and methods based on the work of Sigmund Freud. As a technique of psychotherapy, psychoanalysis seeks to discover connections among the unconscious components of patients' mental processes. The analyst's goal is to help liberate the patient from unexamined or unconscious barriers of transference and resistance, that is, past patterns of relating that are no longer serviceable or that inhibit freedom.

That's the entire intro and it doesn't sum up the criticism at all. It does say pseudoscience in the criticism section, but not in the leader. In effect, we would be choosing to put that word in the leader, an unnecessary choice, and I can't personally support that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And finally (before I open it up to discussion), it's pretty sad that astrology, which is criticized daily by virtually everyone, has a more neutral intro. I just (more or less) like the live intro better. It's almost cliche now to use the word diplomatic, but that's pretty much what I'm shooting for. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That is because the lead sentence clearly calls astrology a group of "systems, traditions, and beliefs". There is no claim that it is or may even be a science. You will note that further down in the article, we see the statement "Although astrology has had no accepted scientific standing for some time, it has been the subject of much research among astrologers since the beginning of the twentieth century." Anyway, I agree - it's a well-written article. However, were we to follow its lead, people would howl that we were being biased against parapsychology. Ante lan ^talk 13:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this one needs more discussion of the scientific status. That's why the live intro was worded the way it was. There comes a point where there's too much criticism and it changes the tone of the article to being against the topic. The draft version covers it ad naseum. Just in the intro here's a list:

Proponents style it as, blah blah, but that's frequently disputed.
It's at best a fringe science.
Critics say point 1, point 2, point 3
The demarcation part now reads as there's a line drawn between science and non-science and parapsychology crossed it.
No results are accepted by mainstream science.

Compared to...

The parapsychologists themselves say it's science
Some dead guy thought it was interesting

Now, there's no way this intro is a neutral treatment of the topic. Even creation science doesn't get the criticism at ever turn treatment. We can do better, and it's my feeling that the live intro (or some variation that's mostly based on it) is not that bad. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Creation science begins, "Creation science is the creationist's attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation." A parallel would be, "Parapsychology is the parapsychologists' attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify a paranormal explanation of commonplace but unresolved occurences and statistical fluctuations." I'm not sure that's better, but maybe. The thing is, when you dismiss a topic's validity so smoothly in the intro, you have no reason to keep criticizing it throughout the article. If we were to just call parapsychology pseudoscience right from the get-go, you could pretty much do away with all remaining criticism, so long as you didn't try to portray it as scientific later. That's what they did in astrology and creation science, and it's why there's so much less discussion of controversy here. I'm not sure that those are the models that we want to use for this article. Ante lan ^talk 13:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they aren't good models. I'm using them as examples of how not to go wild on an article. Ours is not a neutral intro. The point of view that parapsychology is not scientific is a contentious point of view and there's plenty of sources that show there are differing mainstream opinions on the matter. We're slanting the intro towards just one in its current incarnation. This is odd because none of the other mainstream encyclopedias do that. While Wikipedia is certainly different, it shouldn't diverge too much from the other encyclopedias in tone, especially since the stated goal of Wikipedia is neutrality. One other thing that's odd is that our intro is less neutral than the entry on parapsychology in the Skeptic's Dictionary [14]. It doesn't even say pseudoscience. We really need to reword the intro, and if my wording isn't good enough someone needs to offer up some examples that are better, neutral, and with the goal of stability in mind. One thing to consider in doing so is what are we trying to accomplish, an intro or a summary of the article. If it's the former, we don't need to summarize everything (see psychoanalysis, also accused of being a pseudoscience). If it's the latter, why does it mostly just sum up the criticism? Where's the summary of the history, or the summary of the research, or the summary of the current laboratories, and so on? If it's just notable ideas, the most notable is the controversy over using scientific methods to research something that may be outside the scope of science. That's multisourced and can even be sourced to the Skeptic Dictionary. We have a lot of options available to us. Like I said, it's a choice to use the current wording and that's not a choice I would support and one I believe is actually against the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The live intro is garbled, and intro should be very basic, beginning with stating the obvious. How about a simple removal of the first two sentences of the second paragraph (so it only makes mention of the meta-analysis about how the debate is part of the larger demarcation of science)? The simple sentence in the first paragraph that says: "Proponents style parapsychology as a discipline compatible with science including schools of psychology, however those assertions and the results of parapsychological work have met with frequent opposition from critics." is enough of a mention of the two opposing sides of the debate in my view, and as it gives space to both sides equally, I think it's NPOV. Without the first couple sentences, it doesn't summarize the details of the criticism section. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to see some suggested versions to participate because I don't really see that much wrong with the live intro that can't be fixed with a little tweaking. I don't think it's flawed to where it needs a whole rewrite. As such, it's giving me writer's block. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll create a sandbox example of what I'm talking about, but before I go into details on what specifically is wrong with the live intro, it should be said that Martinphi apparently thinks the new intro is a "show stopper" (see below), which I'm assuming means he likes it. I also think that it is much more concise and useful to a novice on the topic. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The way I've always heard that used, it means the show can't go on. This show is dead in the water as far as I'm concerned, with WDM's current intro. It's not good. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, yeah. Now that I think about it, stopping the show doesn't sound like a good thing. Was the issue about your objections to saying that proponenets "style" it as science resoled? because I see how you could feel like that's a negative connotation. Why don't we just say a word other than style? VanTucky ^(talk) 03:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that word is minor, really, though I'd much rather have "say," with an attribution- a source I can provide easily. I think you are suggesting a lead more along the lines of that used in psychoanalysis. Of course, it has to mention the skepticism, but not a full paragraph.

1. What the word means

2. What the field covers

3. What parapsychologists say

4. What critics say.

All that can be covered in just a very few short sentences- one or two more than psychoanalysis. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the full intro in WDM's version is informative and comprehensive as well as balanced, but I don't think a whole paragraph on the debate is necessary per se. As I said above, ehat I'm suggesting is that we cut the second paragraph to only include the stuff about how the debate brings up a further question about the demarcation of science. And then the first paragraph sentence (which will have a bit of tweaking for word choice per above) that says: "Proponents style parapsychology as a discipline compatible with science including schools of psychology, however those assertions and the results of parapsychological work have met with frequent opposition from critics." seems to be enough of a summarization of the basic contrasting viewpoints of critics and parapsychologists. Previously in the paragraph there is already the definition of the field by the PA, which I think is a good sourced way of showing what parapsychologists think there work is. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[Moved portion of discussion to Talk:Parapsychology#Draft intro for feedback] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky's suggestions

Seems fair to me, but I would not change the definition to Martinphi's version ever. First off, you left out the last part detailing examples. Second, his revision makes it imprecise. No need to point out in the definition that only some types of paranormal phenomena are under the field's purview, as this is detailed later on. Keeping the definition extremely basic is important, for the first sentence anyway. First you establish that is the attempt to find evidence for paranormal activity, then expand in the next sentences to define what activities in particular. Besides, saying that the concrete definition includes and has only ever included these certain types of paranormal phenomena is false. The types of paranormal activity that parapsychology has studied has changed over time, and will empirically continue to do so. VanTucky 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What what changes should I make exactly? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the current definition (in your sandbox version). However, I find it odd that not once is the word pseudoscience mentioned, as many critics within the scientific community would seem to label it as such. Per the idea of the merge with Controversy, we either need to add in the entire section detailing those critcis opinion of it as pseudoscience, or at least, the part in the introduction might say: ...fringe science at best, and patent pseudoscience at worst... VanTucky 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us some scientific RS sources for that? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You might check out the multiple reliable sources in the Controversy in parapsychology Pseudoscience section. But if you aren't satisfied by those, there is this, this, and this. VanTucky 02:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It does say "The methods of parapsychologists are regarded by some critics as a pseudoscience." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim that it is pseudoscience is included in the article. I made sure of that in the draft we installed earlier, per ArbCom discussions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're lying, but just thinking structurally, what section is it in? Criticisms? VanTucky 03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Have you read the new article?

Click here for the rough draft. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There's actually a section devoted just to that topic, outside the rest of the criticism (first under the main criticism header) because it's a big one. It's the "Controversy over scientific status". The rest of the article including the intro are softer versions of the same idea, whether or not it is science. Big discussion in the ArbCom about it, so took special care in writing that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen many claims that "many scientists" think that, but no data to support the claim. Technically, it is perhaps a straw man or needs total attribution, but I think we can get away with it because it is intuitively true. There is no need for it in the introduction, though, because nearly all the sources (such as this) say the view that parapsychology is pseudoscience is not realistic. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's please stop arguing. VanTucky, I haven't seen any actual specific criticisms of the article concerning what should be added or removed. Please be a little clearer about what you would like to see changed and remember to be specific. As noted above, it is mentioned in the criticism area that some scientists consider parapsychology a pseudo science. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, there's no reason to get into a big discussion of the various sides of the topic -- all over again. The phrase "fringe science at best" is already a negative statement. Adding "patent pseudoscience at worst" would be a double negative statement. The former is a "diplomatic negative". The latter is a pejorative negative, so much so that Wikipedia has special guidelines for its use. There's negative statements all throughout the article and at some point the repetition compromises readability. The draft covers all notable ideas about the topic, diplomatically. Maybe it is the time to just agree to disagree on small points. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made some suggested changes in a draft here. However, I think I may be wrong with the edits on the Ganzfeld section, so bear that in mind. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There are too many changes there Martin. Please introduce 1 at a time and explain your reasoning for wanting the change so that we can all consider it together. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the changes are obvious, and I made it into a lot of small edits so you could just go through the diffs. Since most of the changes are just copy edits, I can wait till the article is inserted if you wish, but I'm trying to go with your plan. Why would I, for instance, have to explain that Britain is not in Europe? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well post them all here. Britain isn't part of Continental Europe however I believe it's considered still part of Europe. Maybe someone could correct me. However, Please post all of the changes including copy edits here that you think should be made, except one at a time. I think we should stick to that plan. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The commentary "...those who hold naive views about parapsychology..." absolutely needs to be removed. It is clearly a violation of NPOV, as it simply states that critics views are naive, not that proponents think that the views are naive. Again, I guess this goes along with removing the counterpoint from within the section reserved for Criticisms. Also, the part about parapsychologists concern about those who hold a "naive belief" in parapsychology, while being on the opposite side of the spectrum, also both violates NPOV and is slightly off-topic. The section is for outlining criticisms, not parapsychologist's concerns about the study of the field. Both of these statements of naivety make judgement about critics and amateur proponents, and should be removed. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They could also be removed on the grounds that they're just ad hom remarks, not addressed to any particular concern. Ante lan ^talk 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there any reason that the link to the now-defunct UNLV parapsych chair was removed but the PEAR link was not? I think they could both remain. On the other hand, the Perrott-Warrick link should be taken down, as it's dead. Ante lan ^talk 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think people are intimidated to where they don't want to mess with the links right now. WDM, if you can change it in your draft, I'll remove it from the live page. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the UNLV External link: "* Bigelow Chair of Consciousness Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), now defunct." Ante lan ^talk 02:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa's Suggestions

This evening, I have focused mostly on the criticism section because this is the part that has seen the most changes. I have made substantial edits to Wikidudeman's draft, and respecting his request not to edit his draft directly, I have made my edits here (which, BTW you are welcome to tinker with). Overall, I have to agree with WDM's general choice of topics for the criticism section, but I thought it could be improved for stability and readability. The following will (I hope) characterize my edits:

1. I removed all direct quotes. Not because they were bad quotes, but because I'm afraid that the practice of quoting criticisms will only inspire other editors to quote responses, and I'd hate to see the criticism section turn into the unstable mess that it was before. Additionally, I don't think that direct quotes are appropriate for a summary style entry.

2. I removed all content related to 'proponents' for parapsychology. Again, this is to prevent this section from turning into a criticism/response format. I think the exposition of the preceeding paragraphs is enough. Parapsychology states its case. The critics state theirs. End of story. As much as I appreciate WDM making room for responses to criticisms, I think we'll have a more stable article without them.

3. I thought that there was some redundant material, as well as material under some headings that would be more properly placed under different headings. For example, selection bias and meta-analysis are related concepts. Statistical deviation is a common criticism of experimental results, etc...

4. Vocabulary. I've tried to lend my expertise here to make the language more precise, and in some cases was able to replace entire phrases with just one or two words. If you think this has changed the meaning of what you are trying to convey, doesn't match the sources (even though I've read most of them), or if it is too much for a lay person, feel free to put it back.

5. Weasal words. Sometimes you can't get away from these, but there are too many and I tried to get rid of a few. For example, in the first paragraph I think that even parapsychologists will agree that the field "does not have a clearly defined subject matter, an easily repeatable experiment that can demonstrate a psi effect on demand, nor an underlying theory to explain the paranormal transfer of information."

Anyhow, Wikidudeman, I appreciate your efforts. Do what you will with my draft of the crticism section, but I hope that you will find it helpful and will incorporate at least some of the changes. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that the section on Laboratories, Organizations, and Publications should eventually go back. I'm not going to push the issue right now because that section was incomplete when the draft was transfered here, but I do think that such information is relevant to an article overviewing the field and should eventually be put back in a more complete form if other editors support it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that we need to prevent it from turning into a "criticism" and then "response" and then "more criticism" again, we also need to refrain from stating supposed facts and then citing their sources. For instance we don't want to say "Parapsychology does not have a clearly defined subject matter, an easily repeatable experiment that can demonstrate a psi effect on demand, nor an underlying theory to explain the paranormal transfer of information." as if it were an absolute fact, rather say that "it is said that..." and then cite the source. Before I make any changes based on your draft I want to first get at least some input from the other editors on it. So I won't make any changes until then. For instance, What do you all think of removing any response to the criticism in the criticism section? Should it just be an explanation of Parapsychology and then the criticism and no responses to the criticism? So as to avoid constant criticism/response, criticism/response ad infinitum? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue with putting the lead back into the quote above. I just know from my own experience and from conversations with others in the field that there is little argument about that statement...still, I agree that there might be a problem with stating it as a fact at Wikipedia, so do what you feel is appropriate.

As for removing responses, I realize that you are looking from input from other editors, but I really do think that it's the best way to go. As long as parapsychology is able to state its case by having the status of the field and its major experiments adequately and fairly summarized (after a cautious lead, of course), there's no reason why the critics shouldn't get the floor to themselves for a few paragraphs. Admittedly, it's difficult to let some of those criticisms go because I can imagine several counter-arguments to some of the points in that section, but really does follow the rules of debate (in this case, each side gets one turn) and we have to consider what is appropriate for a summary. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What I'm going to do is try to get a consensus on each of the changes you have made. So right now let's start with this: What do you all think of removing any response to the criticism in the criticism section? Should it just be an explanation of Parapsychology and then the criticism and no responses to the criticism? So as to avoid constant criticism/response, criticism/response ad infinitum? Let's try to get a consensus on this first and if one is reached I'll remove it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

^I like that better. That was the idea behind the original rewrite. Research, criticism, references. No flat fact statements and attribute opinions. No back and forth. It seems to be the article structure of most controversial topics at Wikipedia. But if you do it, you'll have to find some way of moving the last part of "Remote Viewing" (Utts/Hyman) to the criticism section. That shouldn't be too difficult, though, because that criticism is against PEAR in general and isn't solely against remote viewing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Utts/Hyman criticism of PEAR down to the criticism section. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but there seems to be a consensus going to remove the parapsychology responses from the criticism section as well. Like I said above, I didn't read through that section thoroughly, but if there are responses they should be limited to one to two lines at most. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be a good idea, mixing criticism and response in the same section is pretty much discouraged across the board by NPOV. But if anyone would like, a separate (possibly following) section giving space for the response is an acceptable practice I believe. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with VanTucky: in that there is no need for response in the criticism section. There might or might not be a need for a response section- but I doubt it, and that could come later, and I think only if the criticism response were to get expanded beyond what Annalisa suggests. My main concern with Annalisa's draft is just that it makes it feel like experimenter fraud might be a major issue, and it really isn't.

Second issue: it isn't clear that meta-analysis is popular in other areas of science.

There is no need for ATT on this: "Parapsychology does not have a clearly defined subject matter, an easily repeatable experiment that can demonstrate a psi effect on demand, nor an underlying theory to explain the paranormal transfer of information."

But there might be need for better ATT on "As a result, parapsychology remains an isolated science to such an extent that its very legitimacy is questionable." It isn't really clear that it's Alcock's opinion.

Because the major critics do feel parapsychology is scientific, we should put "Although critics may feel that parapsychological study is scientific, they are not satisfied with its experimental results." This leaves the issue of numbers open.

That's all I see now. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the responses in the criticism section. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just got what you mean above, Martinphi. In the second paragraph of the fraud section, it looks like WDM added "by its researchers" to my original sentence "No scientific field is immune to instances of fraud or deception." I missed this before. The issue of fraud/deception affects both researchers and subjects in all fields, so the extra phrase is not necessary. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed 'Alcock says' for readability, but if you think it's that important, we can let it go.

I think that my edits to the meta-analysis discussion make it clear that meta-analysis is technique used by parapsychologists, and not a technique that was invented by them. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So what do you suggest I change? Specifically? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How about if we get back to my points above? Number 1: I would like to see the direct quotes removed. Specifically the ones by Blackmore and Dingwall for reasons stated above. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Blackwell quote and paraphrased it, tell me what you think now of it. I totally deleted the Dingwall quote as well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this will do for now. And it looks like you've already addressed Number 2, so let's look at Number 3 above, which is in two parts. First, redundancy. The material in the lead and the paragraph under "Controversey over scientific status" are all pretty general and address the same general concerns. I think that we can eliminate "Controversy over scientific status" as a heading, and combine the material from both paragraphs into a one or two paragraph lead. The edits that I linked above demonstrate one way of doing this. I can wait to address the rest of Number 3 after you've had a chance to respond. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. The scope and content of the Controversy section are very clearly specific and necessary as a a separate section. A lead is for summarizing the following content of a section, not for glossing over the major point of criticism. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything else?

Are there any more additions or changes that should be made? Please let me know if I missed anything. Explain specifically what the changes needs to be, one at a time. thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please make my changes above; everything except those dealing with the Scope section seem to have consensus. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "above". Re-post them here and detail the changes specifically and I'll take a look at them. --Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you haven't been watching my suggestions. Here you go [15].

I don't really see the benefits of the changes [3], [8], and [9].

[3] this change is substantial change in tone from the current article.

[8] purely personal preference, but I don't like the title change that much.

[9] again, substantial change in tone.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're opposed to MaritinPhi's changes then?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really opposed as they're "good enough" too, but most of those changes in those three diffs are to wording I put together, and I spent a lot of time thinking about how to word them. The title change [8] is just a personal preference, but the other two [16] and [17] change the tone of what I was striving for, which was based on the ArbCom discussions. Don't have a problem with any of the other ones.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr's wording strikes a more delicate balance. Ante lan ^talk 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Post the link to the specific wording changes you're requesting again. I'll request some comments from the others to compare the two side to side and add some input. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi's links are here [18]. I didn't have a wording change as I was suggesting leaving it as it is on link [3], [8], and [9]. The others are fine by me to change. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're supporting or opposing. Are you supporting or opposing these? [19] and [20] Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support Nealparr's original wording on 8 and 9. Ante lan ^talk 20:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Aren't they Martinphi's wordings? 8 and 9, Here [[21]] and here [[22]]. Do you support the changes he's made or support my current roughdraft? I'm not understanding what you're supporting. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Whereas I think that most of Martinphi's proposed changes are fine, I would prefer Nealparr's versions on 8 and 9. That is, I would prefer that you not make changes 8 and 9 that Martinphi suggests. I believe this is Nealparr's position, too, but please correct me if wrong. Ante lan ^talk 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, really specific : ) I think WDM's draft should continue to say:

"A decade of increased research (1970s)" (sub header title under history)
"Proponents style parapsychology as a discipline compatible with science including schools of psychology, however those assertions and the results of parapsychological work have met with frequent opposition from critics." (first paragraph)
"Despite the surge of interest in the 1970s" (first line under "Parapsychology today" as opposed to Martinphi's "In contrast to")

Also, just noticed that I'd like to see something put back into WDM's draft.

In the second paragraph, there used to be a quote after the "A large portion of parapsychological work involves examining the statistical evidence... blah, blah, blah" The quote was removed. I'd like the Nature quote (or a paraphrasing if we're not going with quotes) put back in. The line about the large portion of parapsychological work involving statistics was meant to lead into that quote about whether it is worthwhile, and how that's subjective. If you dump the Nature quote, might as well remove the "A large portion..." as well because it's out of place. I'd like to see the Nature blurb put back in though, because it sums up the various feelings about whether parapsychological work is worthwhile -- subjective. It sets the tone for the rest of the article where we explain the various subjective opinions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The tone is what I object to. That intro is extremely biased when it says: "Proponents style parapsychology as a discipline compatible with science" - I absolutely object to that, as the same thing can be said without bias as in my version. But mainly, the edits the the lead were for making it more understandable. I want the tone to be neutral and, -to be totally honest-, it isn't now. We need to sound as if we are reporting straight facts. Basically, the changes in tone that I make are more neutral. [3] and [9] are pretty important. "Parapsychology hasn't disappeared, however," uses a weasel word, and doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. It makes it sound totally defensive, or if not defensive, then like "it hasn't disapeared yet, but it's gonna." But it doesn't sound neutral. Also introduces the concept of "disapearance," which is not otherwise talked about.

WDM, here are the changes we're talking about: [23] and [24] 9. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm cool either way. But just reporting straight facts is problematic because there's opinions all over parapsychology. That was proplem #1. You can't say factually that it is science, and you can't say factually that it isn't. Both statements rely on a subjective interpretation of the limits of science. For the most part the limits of science are clear (scientific method), but parapsychology is that weird kink where they apply scientific methodology to something that may be outside the scope of science.

Your version was "Inclusion of parapsychology as one of the sciences has met with frequent opposition from critics." and the problem with that is the uninformed reader may wonder "Why should it be? It's just a belief system like astrology." I keep bringing this up in these talk pages, but always, always you must present the pro before you can present the con, otherwise the con has no context. In other words, you present that the proponents completely believe it is a scientific discipline, and that they present it as a scientific discipline, before you begin discussions of why it may not be. You have to give a reason why it may be before you say that assertion is frequently opposed. If you have another way of wording that, go for it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What is POV about "Proponents style parapsychology as a discipline compatible with science including schools of psychology"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr- I don't care what the reader thinks, as long as we report accurately. If the reader wants to think what you say, what's wrong with that? But the wording "proponents style" is biased, as would be either of those words alone. What's wrong with "parapsychologists say?"

WDM- the tone is biased. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I see nothing bias about "proponents style". The sentence says "Proponents style parapsychology as a discipline compatible with science including schools of psychology", how would I phrase it if I replaced "Proponents style" with "Parapsychologists say"? How about "Parapsychologists style the field as a discipline compatible with science including schools of psychology"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There's really not that much difference between "proponents style" and "parapsychologists say". There are some important distinctions, however. The first one has an air of a secondary statement versus the latter which reads as primary. The other difference is that "proponents" include all supporters, not just the parapsychologists themselves. But really there's not that much difference. Why would "proponents style" be biased but not "parapsychologists say"? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it, But It makes no difference to me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "proponents style", and "parapsychologists style" sounds much worse. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you'll all have to work that out. We need to settle one thing at a time and this could be a potential cause for future edit wars I'm afraid. I personally don't care either way it's phrased. I do agree that "Proponents style" sounds much better though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially because it's not just parapsychologists who think that. In the Venn Diagram of parapsychology, there are proponents and parapsychologists; while most parapsychologists are going to be proponents, most proponents will probably ~~be laypeople~~ not be parapsychologists simply based on numbers. (Amended to more accurately reflect what I was going for; thanks for your comment, Nealparr.) Ante lan ^talk 21:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not just the laypeople. There are some other scientists that support it, and even others that think it is scientific even as they are criticizing it on some other issue. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the definitions of "style" is to design, make, or arrange in accord with the prevailing mode. That's pov, to say that Proponents design, make or arrange Parapsychology as a science.

There's gotta be a better way.

Perhaps just a simple statement that there is controversy over whether or not Parapsychology is a science or a pseudoscience. Then describe the controversy in later sections...

Nealparr, there are proponents of skepticism who style their view as the correct one. And there are proponents of the paranormal who style their view as correct. I do neither. I want to report what people say, which in this case is to report the controversy. But "proponents style," is plain POV.

So, you're making the same mistake about me as the proponents of skepticism: that I'm wanting to report "the facts" rather than "the facts about what people say."

OK, we need to get something very very clear: we are talking about parapsychology here, academic parapsychology. We are not, in any way shape or form, talking at all about "other proponents." That is a really huge major point about this article. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "proponents say... etc." Maybe "style" is too fancy, though that's exactly what they do : ) They present something, it's criticized, they reformat and present again. Rhine restyled psychic research as parapsychology (experimental) in the exact fashion you described above. Oh, to be clear, I'm not questioning your point of view. I believe that you're trying for neutrality. I'm just talking about the wording. Also, styling, or rather "restyling" isn't a bad thing. It's actually one of the good things said about parapsychology. In response to criticism like lack of controls, they improve controls. In response to criticisms about sensory leakage in Ganzfeld, they respond by making a virtual environment on a computer where there's no sensory at all. Style shouldn't be seen as a bias against. It's rather neutral. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to go back to my original wording. While "proponents say" is good enough, "proponents style" is a lot better. Proponents say this, critics say that, it may be science, it may not be. Those are all opinions associated with parapsychology, but the fact is that it is "styled" as science, whether it actually is or isn't. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We're talking only about parapsychologists in academia, and parapsychology as a pursuit in academia. And those parapsychologists "say". We can source that statement, and we don't care about what "proponents" in general say: the article doesn't cover that. We aren't talking about all "proponents," only parapsychologists, and further, only academic parapsychologists. And we have a perfect source for their saying that, the PA.

So that's my say, and I'll go with what others decide on it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What about "Academic supports of parapsychology fashion it as..."? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, just thinking aloud. Why only academia? Shouldn't there be a blurb about pseudo-parapsychology in here at some point in the future? It's become notable through shows like Ghost Hunters and the like. A disambig seems unnecessary. Just a paragraph or two could cover it because academic parapsychology has more weight. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Very very good idea Nealparr. And "fashion" is another horrid word (no offense). What's wrong with "say?" Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We need to work out the wording of this sentence before me move forward, or else we'll keep coming back to it. Martinphi, Can you come up with another way to phrase it that includes all proponents of parapsychology not simply academics and says that they do more than "say"? What about "model"? "Supporters of parapsychology model it as..."? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My connection is going bad, I may not be able to respond. You can just put it in the way it is, I'm not that concerned about it. But what I am totally concerned about is this: this article includes only academic parapsychology, and totally excludes other "proponents." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can non-academic approaches really be termed 'parapsychology'? Ghost hunters and the like generally call themselves paranormal researchers and there's already another article for that. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Very unfortunately, that was a major problem: the conflation of parapsychology with unscientific.... um.... stuff. See ArbCom. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, definitely, parapsychology is academic parapsychology by every standard. In science discussions, it's always academic parapsychology that's referred to. In the history of parapsychology, it's always the academic history of parapsychology. I'm on board with that and it's definitely the more notable view. What I'm talking about is that there's a lot of paranormal researchers out there mistakingly calling themselves parapsychologists. It's become notable in recent years largely by the popularity of weekend ghost hunting. It's because of this that it did come up in the ArbCom. LuckieLouie even linked to a video on YouTube where a guy was trying to say parapsychologists don't need a degree. This guy [25] is not a parapsychologist : ) But that's a common view of parapsychology and what I'm talking about is a paragraph or two discussing the important difference between the two. It's not a pressing concern and can be added later. I could write it myself in the time it took to write this. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm going to catch flack for this from whomever keeps adding Dr. Richard DiMaggio to the external links section, but DiMaggio [26] is not an academic parapsychologist, though he says he is at his website because he has a doctorate from here. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi has said he would accept it the way it is, I see no need for further discussion of it. So therefore we need to move to the next subject of the draft...Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything else else?

I'm going to go ahead and make a new area of discussion for this so, What other objections does anyone else have? I get lost scanning through everything above so I'll need someone to post some specifics so we can get to the next topic of discussion. What other objections are there? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Annalisa satisfied with the Criticisms? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for grammar clarification, in Scope I think "and encountered in places he or she frequented" should be changed to say something clearly defining who he or she we are speaking of, such as: "and encountered in places a deceased individual is thought to have frequented". VanTucky ^(talk) 04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, for grammatical tense and to conform with the standard definition (see Websters), reincarnation should say, "the survival of a soul or other non-physical aspect of human consciousness after death..." VanTucky ^(talk) 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Both done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The only specific thing I have to say is that the present intro 21:18, 5 July 2007[27] has morphed quite a bit from what I earlier agreed to, or even from what was there yesterday when last I looked. I don't think it will remain stable because the second paragraph might as well be an intro to the criticism section. The live intro is a much more neutral treatment and yesterday's was good enough. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the accusation of psuedoscience, the basic fact that no results have been patently accepted as conclusive by the scientific community and the resulting quandry over the demarcation of science is essential to a summarization of the subject and the rest of article. But I think the following version would be much more succint and in line with what is necessary about the paragraph.

Some critics regard the methods of parapsychologists as a pseudoscience and to date there have been no experimental results that have gained wide acceptance in the scientific community as valid evidence of paranormal phenomena. The controversy over parapsychological study is said by some to be an example of the larger debate over the demarcation problem in science, which examines the boundaries commonly drawn between science and non-science.

What do you think Neal? VanTucky ^(talk) 04:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

NealParr, I thought the Intro should include both the introduction to parapsychology as well as the criticism of it at the end just as the article does. The introduction is basically a brief introduction of the article itself and is supposed to summarize it. It should contain the mentions that parapsychology is criticized. I'm just making changes based on what I'm getting from here. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more excessive than it needs to be. I try not to think of neutrality in terms of balancing pro and con, but if you think about it there's only two pro statements in the intro; one is a primary statement from the PA and the second is a remark that way back in the day a notable psychologist was in favor of it. I'll let others take a look at it, but my view is that the live intro is a lot more diplomatic. I hate the word pseudoscience because it's a pejorative. There are other ways of saying the same thing without using it. When looking for sources, the mainstream sources (not pro, but not completely skeptic) rarely used it. I personally feel that it only belongs in the criticism section and that the intro can say the same thing without using the word. I feel that we can be more diplomatic in the intro than in the criticism section. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience isn't n**ger, it's not a patent perjorative in all circumstances. But even if it was, it is both true and properly sourced that critics call parapsychology pseudoscience. The live intro is alot more convoluted and bloated is what it is. If you don't want the second paragraph looking like a re-hashing of the entire Criticism section, stick to a very essential summarization of the criticism, which is that either the entire field of study or some of its methods are called pseudoscientific. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The summary of the criticism section is that critics feel that it is a failed, deprecated, or flawed endeavor because it lacks a framework that would make it sucessful, or a methodology that is convincing. This is a stark contrast from an outright pseudoscience that makes no effort whatsoever to be scientific but claims it is based on science, like astrology. That's all rhetoric, though. For the purposes of Wikipedia, pseudoscience is a pejorative and specific guidelines [28] were written up because of this ArbCom [29]. It's a criticism, but not a particularly notable one considering some apply the term to all of psychology or anything that's not a part of the natural sciences. It sort of loses meaning. The point is that it's not necessary for the intro and that we can be more diplomatic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your personal rhetoric about how the accusations of pseudoscience are fringe is directly controverted by the sources provided. This bs about trying to downplay (in both the intro and the Criticism section) the cited, mainstream characterisation of parapsychology as pseudoscience is unacceptable. From the linked policy: "Theories which have a substantial following, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." In other words, an incontrovertible and significant subset of the scientific community feels parapsychology is pseudoscience, but we do not assert blankly that it is the generally accepted notion by all. But we absolutely must give credence to the fact that a significant portion of critics characterize it as such. VanTucky ^(talk) 06:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you because that usually becomes uncivil. I'll post my thoughts in my section and editors can agree or disagree. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I'm getting ambiguously polemical. I'm going to bed for now, but I'd like to see your draft of the intro. VanTucky ^(talk) 07:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is just little nitpicky stuff, but I think the Zener cards image is boring. Since I'm feeling like possibly nominating this new version for GA status after it is enacted, I'd like a more iconic image as the first one. Would anyone object to making the Ganzfeld image the lead? VanTucky ^(talk) 05:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer someone upload a new image for the article. I would prefer the Ganzfeld image be kept in the Ganzfeld section. We can't have it in 2 places in the same article and it makes much more sense that it be kept in the section dealing with it. We have so many people interested in Parapsychology here and none can upload a good and free image for use in the article? C'mon. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I actually made that Ganzfeld image in Photoshop because I couldn't find a free one. It's tough, parapsychology isn't as widespread as people think it is. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting to duplicate the image, I was saying move the one now to the lead and then move the Zener back to its later mention. But other than Commons, one option (though time-consuming and sometimes inconclusive) is to search the properly licensed images in Flickr. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked on Flickr and can't find any. I think someone needs to upload a new one we can use, so that we keep the image of the ganzfield person in it's same place. That image seems to be used in any psychic-related article. It's over used. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I was continuing our conversation here but I think you might have missed it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've made most of your suggested changes. I removed most if not all of the direct quotes. I've removed all responses to criticisms and "proponents of parapsychology" other than in the lead per above. If you could be a bit more specific in what else you think should be changed then tell me here, It's difficult to get any sort of discussion or consensus just by looking at differences from your draft. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look again at the end of the section. I've been pretty specific about the next point I'd like you to address. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what you think now. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, the lead is for summarizing the content to follow, not outlining the most strident point of criticism. The accusation that parapsychology isn't fundamentally scientific is a distinct and limited subject that structurally should be separate from the lead. I can't see a reason for removing the headline other than reducing its visibility... VanTucky ^(talk) 05:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that the scientific status of parapsychology has received a lot of criticism. What is questionable is if one paragraph of material requires its own heading. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, several other distinct topics with only a paragraph or two have their own headings. The point is that structurally, a lead is for summarizing the topics to follow (not detailing a topic mentioned in passing previously). The controversy over the basic scientific status is a distinct subject. It's not just a summarization of the other headed topics following, but a paragraph of unique and separate facts about the criticism of parapsychology as fundamentally unscientific. A debate over the basic status of the field is obviously a separate subject and isn't just a topic to be summarized as a peripheral lead into the following debates about the practices of that field. Lead: overview of the criticisms to come. Then headed individual subjects. VanTucky ^(talk) 06:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that the controversy over parapsychology's scientific status is important. We could write volumes about it. In fact, I seem to recall putting that heading there myself to begin with. However, as it stands, the text under that heading is general and introductory, and IMO, kind of weak. Unless it is beefed up considerably, it sounds more like lead material than anything specific enough to require it's own heading, at least for the purposes of this summary at present. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I guess since we're not removing content, who cares anyway. But don't be suprised when an outside editor comes along and says the lead is too long and is discussing topics that should be their own section. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that alternately, we could combine that material from both sections, put it under the heading "Controversy over scientific status" and then write an even more general lead that is only about 2-3 sentences. That approach would be okay too. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

~~That might work, but if I can't think of a proper intro to satisfy everyone, let's just revert to the current version without a "Controversy..." header. I'll make a sandbox of the section.~~ Eh, after looking at a Controversy section with all the current lead material in it, it doesn't fit. The only stuff that fits is what was in the Controversy section originally. So if that section's original contents fits better in the intro than the intro in the section...let's just leave WDM's version how it is. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss it amongst yourselves. Hopefully you will come to a consensus by tomorrow concerning whether or not we need that in it's separate header. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare these two sentences. In WDM's earlier version, one sentence came from the lead, the other sentence came under the heading "Controversy over scientific status":

"Critics of parapsychology question the field's status, arguing that the work is unscientific, partly because it lacks a framework within accepted scientific models, and partly because after decades of research it hasn't presented evidence that they say provides conclusive results."

and

"Some of the more specific criticisms state that parapsychology does not have a clearly defined subject matter, an easily repeatable experiment that can demonstrate a psi effect on demand, nor an underlying theory to explain the paranormal transfer of information."

These ideas are related...yet in the draft, they are in different paragraphs and in different sections.

We have a similar problem here:

From the former lead: "Critics of parapsychology question the field's status"

Then under the next heading: "Alcock states that parapsychology remains an isolated science to such an extent that its very legitimacy is questionable."

And now let's look at the first paragraph:

From the first sentence: "...the entire field of parapsychology has produced no conclusive results whatsoever."

Then the last sentence: "...after decades of research it hasn't presented evidence that they say provides conclusive results."

If you want this article to have GA status, you need to have a clear organization and you need to edit away reduntant material. I do wish that you guys would consider incorporatingmy edits as present here instead of making me do this line by line. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The current intro is a show stopper, and I only sign off on the article when Annalisa is satisfied with the Controversy section. Also, if you have added or subtracted other things recently, I'll have to go over it. Just taking a quick look at the diffs now, I see you have an incorrect definition of reincarnation. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WDM, these edits will do for now. Anything else I might want to change are mostly copy edits which we can address after your draft has been installed. Now onto the rest of Number 3...at this point, I think that the rest of the text of criticism section can fall under these three headings:

Fraud

Criticism of experimental results

Criticism of meta-analytic techniques (I think this heading is more NPOV than what you have now)

(I would suggest doing the headings in the above order because the specifics under each heading tend to follow this chronology)

Now, the material in the section titled 'Selection Bias' can be broken up and placed under the headings I suggest above. Selection bias is an important issue when it comes to meta-analytic techniques, so it could go under that heading. The second paragraph under 'Selection Bias' is about statisitical deviation. This is really about how experimental results are interpreted, so I think that this paragraph can go under the heading "Criticism of experimental results" instead. (I hope that wasnt't too much.)--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

These changes seem fine to me. Selective reporting is really an analysis problem, and the stats part could technically go under experimental results as well. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, after they are incorporated, I'll be able to go onto the next thing. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the News? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the news is that my suggestions and edits are being ignored. Nobody is engaging my recommended edits to the criticism section as a whole, and now my attempts to present and discuss these recommended edits line by line are being largely ignored. If we're going to replace the live (and stable) parapsychology article with WDM's new version, we're going to need to do a better job of working toward consensus. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your criticisms, I'm just having trouble navigating through what you think should be changed and think shouldn't be changed. I've made a few edits per your criticisms, I don't know what else to do. You should introduce a specific one line change that you believe should be made so that we can discuss it. For instance quote the sentence in my draft and then quote it in your draft (direct quote, not links) and then explain why the change needs to be made so we can discuss it. It's a lot easier that way. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm trying to work on the structure and organization of the section right now, not on specific content. I can't even begin to discuss one-line changes until the current text is better organized. I think that my suggestions above are pretty specific about the headings I recommend, and how the material under 'Selection Bias' could be integrated under those headings. I'm asking for little more than a copy and paste job at the moment. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard enough to get a consensus discussion going with just single sentences being compared at a time, It would be impossible to compare rewrites of entire sections. The only way I can imagine furthering this discussion and making progress is substituting tiny segments, one at a time. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's okay if you don't want to compare rewrites. That's not what I'm asking you to do above. I simply request that you rearrange the current material under "Selection Bias" under the remaining three headings, and then rearrange the sections into an order that makes sense chronologically (as I suggest above). This is simply a copy, cut, and paste job. You don't have to change any of your text to do this. I would just like to see it placed in an order that makes sense. VanTucky has already agreed to it. I don't see anybody complaining about it. And these changes won't change the meaning of anything that already exsists in the draft. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Draft intro

The WDM draft's intro is unnecessarily imbalanced and needs to be addressed before it gets copied over, especially considering this was just supposed to be a merger. Present company excluded, a number of editors have come through here and commented in various places that they saw nothing at all wrong with the live intro. There was consensus on that, and consensus on the draft's slight rewrite from a few days ago, but the new version doesn't have consensus. If you'd like to take your ideas and present a <blockquote></blockquote> full intro, I'd be happy to take a look at it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that most of what is different is the second paragraph, which does go into some detail explaining the reasoning of critics. This is a little excessive, and I tried to simply state that controversy exists on the two basic points (whether it is science, and the results) without going into detailed explanations. I also inserted a fact that was in neither intros (I think); that most in the scientific community recognise the field as using patently scientific methods, even if they are flawed. It might be kind of obivous, but intros should state the obvious for beginners. The following is a rough mashup of an intro, and it could need some moving around for ideas flow. One piece of notable information, that I think is more important than some famous people were involved in teh field, is that it used to recieve research funding and facilites from universities. If someone can think of a good mention of that to add, I'd like to include it. Tell me what you think...

Parapsychology is the study of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis. The Parapsychological Association describes parapsychology as "the scientific study of paranormal or ostensibly paranormal phenomena, that is, psi; except in Britain, the term has largely superseded the older expression 'psychical research;' used by some to refer to the experimental approach to the field".[1] A large portion of parapsychological work involves examining statistical data about psi. Historically, the field has attracted notable personalities in psychology including American psychologist and philosopher William James, among others. Parapsychological researchers promote the field as a discipline completely compatible with mainstream science, however, that assertion has met with opposition from critics. The controversy over parapsychological study is said by some to be an example of the larger debate over the demarcation problem in science, which examines the boundaries commonly drawn between science and non-science. While most in the scientific community recognise parapsychology as using scientific methods, some of the results of this research has been discarded by critics due to what they purport are methodological flaws. To date, no evidence for paranormal psychological phenomenon has been widely accepted by the scientific community. (from User:VanTucky/sandbox)

VanTucky ^(talk) 21:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want it to be all me, let's see what others think. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets go at this one paragraph at a time. Does anyone have a problem with this current first paragraph in the lead section?

Parapsychology is the study of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis. The Parapsychological Association describes parapsychology as "the scientific study of paranormal or ostensibly paranormal phenomena, that is, psi; except in Britain, the term has largely superseded the older expression 'psychical research;' used by some to refer to the experimental approach to the field". Proponents style parapsychology as a discipline compatible with science including schools of psychology, however those assertions and the results of parapsychological work have met with frequent opposition from critics. Historically, the field has attracted notable personalities in psychology including American psychologist and philosopher William James, among others.

Please let's discuss this paragraph and possible changes that could be made to it before we move onto the 2nd paragraph in the intro section. Does that make sense? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, my vote is in for the current version of your intro WDM, it flows well, is comprehensive and provides a clear summarization of the rest of the article. But I was trying to address Neal and Martin's complaints of imbalance. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll make better progress this way. First, If someone has criticism please let them detail it here as clearly as they can, don't link me a link to your rough draft as that's not helpful to further this discussion. Just point out what's wrong with this current first paragraph and then explain what you would change so that we can get a consensus on how to word it. Otherwise we'll never make progress. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there's only two paragraphs, I think it's better to go both paragraphs at the same time. The reason is because one can be perfectly fine and the other will throw it out of wack. My concerns are here Talk:Parapsychology#Draft intro concerns. If you'd like me to recopy that here I can. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For convenience, here's the most important parts from the above:

The point of view that parapsychology is not scientific is a contentious point of view and there's plenty of sources that show there are differing mainstream opinions on the matter. We're slanting the intro towards just one in its current incarnation. This is odd because none of the other mainstream encyclopedias do that. While Wikipedia is certainly different, it shouldn't diverge too much from the other encyclopedias in tone, especially since the stated goal of Wikipedia is neutrality. One other thing that's odd is that our intro is less neutral than the entry on parapsychology in the Skeptic's Dictionary [30]. It doesn't even say pseudoscience. We really need to reword the intro, and if my wording isn't good enough someone needs to offer up some examples that are better, neutral, and with the goal of stability in mind. One thing to consider in doing so is what are we trying to accomplish, an intro or a summary of the article. If it's the former, we don't need to summarize everything (see psychoanalysis, also accused of being a pseudoscience). If it's the latter, why does it mostly just sum up the criticism? Where's the summary of the history, or the summary of the research, or the summary of the current laboratories, and so on? If it's just notable ideas, the most notable is the controversy over using scientific methods to research something that may be outside the scope of science. That's multisourced and can even be sourced to the Skeptic Dictionary. We have a lot of options available to us. Like I said, it's a choice to use the current wording and that's not a choice I would support and one I believe is actually against the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And here's where it is imbalanced towards unscientific (considering both paragraphs as a whole)

Proponents style it as, blah blah, but that's frequently disputed.
It's at best a fringe science.
Critics say point 1, point 2, point 3
The demarcation part now reads as there's a line drawn between science and non-science and parapsychology crossed it.
No results are accepted by mainstream science.

Compared to...

The parapsychologists themselves say it's science
Some dead guy thought it was interesting

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There's alot I disagree with in your characterization of the intro, but the idea that any of the results of parapsychologists are widely accepted in the scientific communiy is a patent falsehood. There is no respected mainstream scientist who says that there is incontrovertible evidence for telekinesis, telepathy, clairvoyance or any other parapsychological phenomena. end of story. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No one presented that idea anywhere. It's not in any version of the article I've ever seen.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You cited that saying "No results are accepted by mainstream science." in the intro was creating an imbalance. How is it imbalanced if it is an accurate statement? It's not just a statement by critics, it's a truism. Thus, it cannot be tipping the scales in favor of critics opinions. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The list is a comparison of pro and cons. They're all sourced statements, but the imbalance occurs when as an editor you choose what you want to put in the intro and what you want to leave out. We could fill it up with all pro sourced statements, for example, and likewise unbalance it that way. We could fill it up entirely with neutral statements if we wanted to. Like I pointed out in the paragraph above it, we have a lot of editorial discretion. The intro, while all true, is tipped to the con, and a specific con. It's unnecessary to do so. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're still not understanding what I'm saying. Balancing for a neutral point of view means making sure there is an equal balance of sourced opinion presented in the article. But that no evidence for parapsychology is accepted by mainstream science isn't a statement of POV to be balanced with another statement, it's just a fact. You may feel it reflects badly on parapsychology, but it's not an opinion, it's just true. Therefore, it can't be part of an imbalance towards the opinions of critics. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And you're not getting what I'm saying : ) We choose which facts we want to put in the intro. We choose which approach we want to take. Choosing more negative facts, even when they're true, slants the intro. We could, for example, take a historical perspective and make it all neutral.

"Parapsychology studies blah, blah, blah. It has it's roots in psychical research from the 19th century which investigated spiritualist's claims. In the 1930s, it switched to experimental methodology. In the 1970s, in a climate of alternative theories, research increased. In the present climate those enthusiams have waned and the results remain open to interpretation."

Boom, done (though that would need to be dressed up). Totally neutral and factual intro. The intro in the draft chooses to go negative, even if they are negative facts. The five second blip I put above is all neutral facts. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One Thing at a Time

WDM, in the Criticism section, please move the 'Fraud' heading and material up so that it is the first thing under the Criticism lead. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! Now take the last paragraph in the Criticism section ("Parapsychologists often cite statistical deviation..."), and place it as the last paragraph of "Criticism of experimental results". --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Except I made it the 2nd to last paragraph in that section which flows better IMO. Tell me what you think. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it works better there. Now we can remove the heading "Selection Bias", thus merging the material underneath it with the section on meta-analysis. Selective reporting and the file drawer problem are all issues surrounding meta-analysis, so the seperate heading is not necessary. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WDM, please change the image line in the fraud section to [[Image:James_Randi_crop.jpg| thumb| right| 200px| [[James Randi]] is a well-known critic of parapsychology and feels that [[Magic (illusion)|magic tricks]] can account for what appears to be psychic phenomena.]] Better to go with the bio pic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. What "Bio" pic? The one at the top of James Randi? It's not the best picture in the world and it's quite wide. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you copy between the [[ ]] above, it will replace the book image with the picture that is in the live version Parapsychology#Fraud. It was argued that we shouldn't be hawking his book. I'm inclined to agree. The book image shouldn't be used outside of his own article or an article about the book itself. It's my bad. I'm the one who put it in there originally not thinking about all of that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Anything else? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my goof. Since I'm focused on overall feel, I'm fine until we get to the intro. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well let's work on the intro then. Remember, One sentence or segment at a time, What do you think should be changed? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Annalisa had more and there's one you missed. I bulleted each one, to minimize confusion. On the intro, I actually wanted to get some feedback from everyone. That's why I started the "Draft intro" section above. VanTucky offered a version but I was hoping some others would as well when they get a chance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did have more. See above. I'm wondering if it might be best to move the discussion to the talk page of WDM's draft until its ready to be installed? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It'd be up to WDM, but I think it's best. Easy to get confused over here. Over there (draft talk page) he can respond to bulleted one line changes without having to wade through everything. I'm fine with that as long as a notice is placed over here before anything gets installed. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Give some suggestions on the talk page of my draft. Because I really don't know which suggestions I missed that you're referring to. I'll take suggestions both here and on the talk page of the draft as well. Remember though, One suggestion at a time so that we can get consensus on it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved my unaddressed point to the talk page of your draft. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why this article is so biased

I am receiving emails asking me why on earth is Wikipedia trying to vilify parapsychology?

It seems to me, and to others I see, that some Wiki editors are determined to define a subject here as they think it aught to be defined, rather than simply explain what it is. An article about Parapsychology should explain what it is. It is not necessary to spend a lot of time--if any--on what it is not.

The whole paragraph beginning with "Many scientists feel that parapsychological study is at best on the outer edges of science because it involves research that doesn't fit within standard theoretical models accepted by mainstream science." is clearly designed to tell the reader that, "if you believe in the supremacy of science, then you must accept that parapsychology is all bunk." That paragraph need not be there at all if you are simply trying to explain what parapsychology is. Further, as I think Nealparr is saying, you can explain what it is without validating it or discrediting it. That is unnecessary characterization.

I personally do not see anything wrong with having a criticism section, but as it is written, it seriously biases the article. The Research section tells the reader what parapsychology studies in a pretty straight-up fashion but the criticism section makes accusations that the accused deserve to be able to respond to. There is just accusation. That bit about fraud is pure nonsense in a modern context, as extraordinary results are seldom included in data summaries--in effect, they are averaged out. As is, the subsection is just typical skeptical innuendo.

By the way, why is there an advertisement for James Randi's book on the page? Isn't that a little obvious?

By the way again, in the Research section, OBE research is not usually considered Survival Research in parapsychology. It is considered a proof of survival by some people, but then, so is EVP, reincarnation and mediumship, which I do not see listed there. To be fair to the majority of parapsychologists, the field of parapsychology should not be linked to survival research, as it is more effectively studied as a reported human experience that needs to be understood. I would either add all of those other survival-related subjects or take that heading out. Finally, the heading looks like it applies to Anomalous Psychology, which I think was not intended. Tom Butler 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Before launching off your little tirade, you might have bothered to notice from this very talk page that we are in the middle of a major rewrite of this article. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the emails actually saying? Anything specific, or are they merely responding to the overall tone of the article? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Before launching off your little tirade, ..." Nice response.

People just see the article, they do not know to go and read weeks and weeks of changes and discussion. I had a kid who was doing a report email us and ask why people still think parapsychology is real if all of those things are wrong with it. A member wanted to know if I planned on getting back to the EVP article and whatever happened to parapsychology. There are others, but the general point is that the article is what is visible and it clearly is biased. I hope you all have it balanced out before the kids start their next round of term papers. Tom Butler 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tom. First off, do be aware that the current parapsychology article is based off of a draft that I had been working on in my sandbox, and was installed here by NealParr with some revisions. It was installed here in an incomplete form, but the consensus was that even in its incomplete form, it was a vast improvement over what was there before. It has its problems, but it has been relatively stable over the past few weeks.

I think its important for the lead to frame the debate about the status of parapsychology in the wider scientific arena. Like it or not, the current scientific paradigm is materialism, and parapsychology is at odds with that paradigm. The results of parapsychology are not widely accepted by scientists, if they were, we'd see more integration with parapsychology in the mainstream. There is nothing about this paragraph that is not fair, and I think it's important to readers to understand the big picture before continuing with the article.

There has also been a general consensus with editors from both sides that the best way to stabilize the article is to allow parapsychology to state its case, let the critics state their case, and that's it. Article over. What we are trying to avoid is this constant cycle of criticism and response that made the last version of the parapsychology so problemmatic. Personally, I find it difficult not to respond to the criticisms, but I really think it's best this way. In a way, the "Laboratories, organizations, and publications section" is the response. Despite what the critics say, parapsychology is still an active field that maintains its ties with the academy...that is parapsychology's best response, IMO.

I don't see the advertisement for Randi's book. You'll have to point that out to me.

We didn't get to finish the section on survival research before intalling the draft here. If you look at my sandbox, you'll see that we had plans to address other phenomena. Parapsychology is still very much interested in phenomena 'suggestive of survival' so we could change the heading to that. The phenomena of OBE's is suggestive of survival (at least in the sense that follows a similar research paradigm to NDE's), so I do really think that it belongs under that heading.

If you look at the table of contents, Anomalous psychology is not under the Survival research heading.

And yes, there is another attempt at a rewrite going on, but it's not all that different from what is already here, so I see no problem with discussing your issues, Tom. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa, thanks for the response. I see that Nealparr has changed the Randi image. Looks much better.

I understand that the parapsychology article is contentious. And obviously, I have not visited it for some time, but I try to respond to comments and questions from web site visitors at aaevp.com and this subject has come up more frequently than usual. My response is usually to say that first, I am not a parapsychologist and cannot speak for the field. But then I add that parapsychology is .... But I will not labor the point here.

I tried pretty hard to find the credentials of Odling-Smee and all I could find was a Dr. studying Influence of ecology on learning in threespined sticklebacks." (http://cognition.icapb.ed.ac.uk/index.php?page=s/3/z-alumni/index.html) I hope that is not the same one who wrote the Nature article because she is quoted all over the parapsychology article. That should get her a good promotion at work to study more fish.

If the revision in the works now is just a little different from the current version, then it is probably going to remain unstable. Letting "...allow parapsychology to state its case..." is not going to work because those who can will have conflicts of interest by Wiki rules and few are as aggressive as skeptical editors.

Okay, I appreciate your response and good effort. I understand that it is very difficult to work so hard for consensus and have someone drop in to complain. I can't tell website visitors to "just wait." Maybe I can find a different source that does not measure a soft science in terms of hard science. Tom Butler 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Odling-Smee is the independent author of the independent article in Nature this February about the closing of the PEAR lab. It's not an editorial piece so the credentials of the author isn't the issue, but rather the credentials of the periodical itself that hired her to do the news story. It's Nature being quoted, not the author's opinions. Secondary source versus primary source. It's actually a great source for this article. The reason that news article was chosen is because it's the most recent article to appear about the topic in a mainstream science periodical and talks about the very things brought up in this article, how mainstream science views parapsychology. We spent a lot of time looking for a source on mainstream science's view that didn't come from a solely skeptical publication or a pro-paranormal publication. This source is as good as it gets. A lot of the article is sourced to varying opinions about the topic, where Nature is an independent source that has nothing to gain or lose and has no real point of view they're supporting. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything else redux?

I'm posting this again so that everyone can get a chance to add any advice for the rough draft before we decide to replace it. Any updates that have been made to this article could also be added if anyone things they should be made. Here's the current rough draft: Click here for the rough draft. You can leave comments here or on the talk page of the Rough draft, either is fine. Please make sure to leave only 1 comment at a time or 1 suggestion at a time. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep User_talk:Wikidudeman/Parapsychology clean by marking each request with a 1), 2), 3) and so on and creating a new discussion section for each number as needed. That will keep the discussions away from the actual numbered requests so we don't get lost. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)