Jump to content

Talk:Psionics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


LINK VANDALISM- PLEASE READ

  My IP was apparently marked as some kind of vandal for reasons unknown.  Some person that is not very nice had deleted ALL of the KNOWLEDGEABLE links that have been there for 6+ months, and replace them all with a single link, titled "the Psion Guild".  I keep having to put them back.  This needs to be stopped. WHY was I marked as a vandal?  IM trying to FIX the vandalism that KEEPS occurring on this page. Its obviously a problem.  I will go further with this if i have to.  For the majority of these knowledgeable sites(Its not like i OWN all of the sites, please), this is their only source of traffic. I cant believe this....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.240.215 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

May I inquire how the links have been marked as spam in the first place? I cannot imagine that the Psion Guild is the only legit site about Psionics on the internet. Oipo (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As of I know of, the several sites investigating psionics in a fully detailed, scientific ways, with a full history, are all there. Maybe your links just don't seem very scientific. If, of course, someone is trying to monopolize this psion guild, I will and can put those links back, of course. [User:scienceisyourfriend|scienceisyourfriend] (talk) 6:03, 14 August 2008 (ETC)

First of all, Firestorm can't be trusted, as he is the admin of a part of the psion guild, the site he is objecting the removal of. From my experiences, VSociety, Psion Guild, and the Psiworld are the "biggies" _just_ because they have the most members. [User:scienceisyourfriend|scienceisyourfriend] (talk) 08:19 (EST)

VSociety is by far the biggest. However, the PsiWorld seems to be completely dead at the moment, and the Psion Guild is about as big as PsionicsOnline(for example) is. I'm not entirely sure, as I haven't checked rigorously, but meh. The age of the PsionGuild is greater though. Oipo (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, missed the link in the page, google refers to old pages. Oipo (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that Psionlicsonline is starting to really up the bias to other, newer websites. For example, on the psionicsonline forum, there are 6,939 as of now. On the 'new' (recreated in july or so) PsiWorld forum, there are 13,868 Posts, about double as much. And the Psion Guild has 22,103, Members: 993 as of now. I don't think PsionicsOnline warrants this much of a Supremest attitude. And the VSociety is too firm in their beliefs, and may not be as open to new ones, which may be a harmful mindset for beginners to adept. Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And, I know you, dude that got his link removed, you're the guy who owns Psi Online. If you forgot, that site had the latest entry on Wednesday, July 2, 2008. Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think PsionicsOnline has a 'supremest attitude'. We just want to be affiliated with Psionics, and because we're actively researching into Psionics, I think we have a pretty good reason too. Just because we're smaller and younger doesn't mean we're any less. Also, just to note, we are not supporting removal of any links, nor are we doing so. We also don't care what order the links are in, just that current and active sites are listed. Oipo (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Then who;s the guy that just reordered everything that I undid? And also, you seem to do have a supremest attitude, I mean, "the Psion Guild is about as big as PsionicsOnline(for example) is." The Psion Guild is several times bigger than Psion Online. This whole thing is insane, did you see the metaphysics page, astral society put a bold as heck link, and it was completely nuts! Is is just me or are the psionic communities fighing for better spots on wikipedia? >.< Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should be offended by your insults, or whether I actually am doing something wrong. I admit, I was saying that the size was equal based on false facts. Other then that, I am not saying that our 'place' is better than any other. Just that it deserves a spot in here, just like any other good and active community. Oipo (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. I wouldn't consider any part of my comment an insult, indeed, it was a reply to what I believed to be an insult. If that is all you're saying, please clear that point up front, because before I came into the chat, you were talking about removing the link of wikipedia, which annoyed me, and really isn't fair at all. And PsiWorld deserves to be there. I don't know about your site, and Psi Online is dead. So, I will keep my link there, and you can do the same. Sorry if I seem rude. Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, lets clear up a few points. 1. I was never, at any time, talking about removing links. I was talking about links getting removed unjustified. 2. We(PsionicsOnline in general) may have ranging opinions, but the general consensus is that we do not touch any of these links here, unless we have a valid reason(site is dead or similar reasons that lead to not having a good source anymore). But, all is fine now. Let's leave it at that. Oipo (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All is actually not fine, 2 different people just removed psiworld. I'm going to report this as heavily vandalized, and request closure unless activated member. Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Maybe add some mention of Remove Viewing involved in the CIA and gov, like stargate? Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps i should report that this page is heavily vandalized, and that someone keeps removing psionicsonline's link. I am thinking that the only supreme attitude around here is yours, "scienceisyourfriend" -concerned.

Maybe you should, "concerned". Turn yourself in. For, in fact, I've never erased any of those links ,only kept psiworld on it. so, perhaps, you should report it again, after I have already done so, and then come back and whine about it again on this page. Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Turn myself in for what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.240.215 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Filed For Deletion

See here for more information - be sure to vote.

Ref. the question put in the main article

Question: (is the "P" pronounced?)

Nope. :) Infact, I've seen a few people spell Psi as Psy, because they think it is said along the same lines as psychology. Think that made sense. I'm kind of tired. CitrusC 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation is /psa?/ scienceisyourfriend —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote

  • I've added a footnote to the article, to avoid Wikipedia gaining a negative reputation (psipog is in there, after all) - all information in those sites is opinion and should be treated as such, but if anyone thinks they can word my footnote better, give it a try. Removal will be treated as vandalism.
:CitrusC00:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't see any footnote, but it is worth a mention that it is not opinion, it is actually claimed to be the real-life experiences of the authors. So either they're nuts, they're lying, or they're telling the truth, according to your beliefs.
:scienceisyourfriend08:10, 14 August 2008 (EST)

Article Rewrite

I'd like to tackle this article, but don't know quite how...fragile...public opinion is. I think a good article should basically adhere to the following structure and content:

Etymology, definitions, progressive changes of definition over time

(both in terms of psychic phenomena and the particular origins of the word)

History of Psychic Phenomena

(ie: in folklore, alleged psychic phenomena, with an initially brief paragraph for each of the various phenomena included under the umbrella term of psionics) -- this would be cross referenced both with wikipedia articles and with various reputable texts of history and folklore

Modern History: Skepticism and Research

--various attempts at proving the existance or non existance, with specific reference to scientific and governmental experiments over the course of the last 50-100 years.

Public Opinion Today.

--A succinct explanation of the as-yet-unproven state of the phenomena, some reference to organixations such as the boundary institute who publish papers of psychic testing of the masses over internet --some mention of onlone communities as side phenomena of the emphasis given to psionics in public awareness in recent times.

/end hypothetical article


So...would such an article be considered acceptable and up to snuff? Controversial? Incomplete?

Feedback would be lovely, as I'd rather modify the structure from the beginning, rather than have it taken down after putting hours of parenthetical citations in.

Novinha 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You've got my support, although the following would be pretty hard to cite:
--various attempts at proving the existance or non existance, with specific reference to scientific and governmental experiments over the course of the last 50-100 years.


Most of the experiments were done back during the Cold War - or at least they are the only ones that went public - the Americans blatently denied any research done into it, which is obviously a load of rubbish. Not even entirely sure where you'd find the documentation, although I know for a fact there are plenty of positive 'animal telepathy' articles floating about.


If you feel you can provide a neutral description of the terms I'd be more than happy to assist, although I'd probably limit my contributions to editing - I never published any of my telekinetic or pyrokinetic (I hate that word) experiments, so any results would need to be treated as opinion... although I may be able to help with the meanings of specific abilities.


The main problem stems with pretty much all of the 'main' sites being based on opinion, so you naturally get differing opinions on specific abilities. I can safely discredit anything from PSIPOG, as I've spoken to one of their ex-staff and discovered they are pretty much using it to powertrip, hence their inability to 'teach' 'advanced techniques' until they feel that the individual asking is 'good enough'. Some sick bastards over there. False hope is never a good thing.


Even if you only succeed in creating a 'general layout' of psionics, I'm sure it would be a nice contribution to wikipedia.. we'd just need to keep an eye out for opinionated individuals and vandals, but we'll discuss that after the draft is put together. CitrusC 22:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I had intended to limit stuff from 'main sites' to
(a) professional articles, (like those published by http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~spr/ and http://www.rhine.org/),
(b) sites that attempt to replicate lab conditions ( a good, fun one being http://www.gotpsi.org, which is very adamant in saying "this works, but repetition distinguishes luck from results", and which publishes yearly papers on their progress), and
(c) sites that are grassroots, forum-based discussion groups-- because I feel that psionics, like various forms of magic (or magick, or magik, or however the hell it is PC to spell it nowadays) is attracting a certain amount of public appeal, and I want to address the social dynamics of that. I certainly don't intend this last category to be a main source of info-- most of these sites simply copy from each other, creating endless infinte streams of telephone-like distortions that fade off into unreality.


[NOTE-->Most of the actual material will be coming from printed texts anyway (the gov, when it declassifies stuff, labels it as 'science' so as to keep it mostly out of public domain anyway. But I have access to most of those sources, so that won't be a problem. And moreover, while properly documented, they tend to be biased in the "we didn't find anything!" way.

For the more...er...positive accounts of psionics, I'll probably cite reader's digest (which is a secondary source, but this isn't a published paper, so I'll be lazy), which is reputable enough to have done the legwork properly, and offers good anecdotal "this worked for these people" sorts of proof. I never intended it to come primarily from websites, though if wikipedia requires that, I guess I could do it that way....]


As well, I'm new to wikipedia (the only wiki-like things I've added to are math-world and science-world), so it *will* need editing, at the very least because I'm an extrememly verbose, dense writer and have no idea how to layout in wikipedia (and only a marginal desire to deal with it)


Novinha 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm liking the sound of #2 - lab conditions are ideal for encylopedic resources. Would completely avoid #1 and #3, to be honest - I can see them causing arguments, as they are more opinion than proof.
I've got this on my watch list, so I'll be able to edit as you publish, although I can't stress enough that you keep to non-opinioned sources, so you don't get other wikipedians crying at you.
Which government are the declassified documents from? You'd want to go for Eastern governments if you can, as they tend to care less about the effect any positive results will have on the public. If they are from the US, there would be a very good chance they'll be heavily modifed, as you can probably guess.
Bet you are going to love getting through all that documentation! CitrusC 13:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The current rehaul by Firestorm is a was a... good... attempt, but far from what this article needs. Looking forward to seeing yours, Novinha. CitrusC 22:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite (new discussion)

Okay, how about we have a panel of actual psions come in and rewrite the article? I pesonally know quite a few that would help do it, as would I. However, to remain NPOV about it, these people should be from several of the larger communities, so as not to get just one faction's version. I myself am a psion, but I won't rewrite the article unless I have some help. With any luck, we could possibly make this into a WikiProject. Firestorm 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Psions are generally opinioned - thats the alternative to the moronic ones who have a power complex over everyone else, that is. This article should not be written by someone who practices the abilities; it should be written by a balanced individual who won't bring bias into the matter. If a Psion writes it, they'll see their word as truth, even if they are misguided on the subject. It will end in conflict between the Psions, so I see the only real option as getting a neutral third party or researcher to look into several sources and decide what information is likely to be truthful (declassified government documentation will probably be a huge source in this, as well as some of the published release documents of psionics researchers).
Why not wait until the article is complete then we can voice our opinions on what could be changed to be more accurate in reference to published works? CitrusC 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I just happened to come across this article, and I don't know what anyone else thinks, but it seems to me it's been written from a much too 'believer' viewpoint. Wikipedia is supposed to keep from representing opinion, whenever possible, and I think we need to put more skepticism into this article to keep it properly scientific. I haven't got a whole lot of time on my hands, but maybe some others could have a close look at it. - Green meklar
  • See the article rewrite topic at the top of the document - we are in the process of rewriting it with more of a scientific theme. Also going to put a 'pinch of salt' footnote to the non-scientific external links (psipog, easypsi, etc.) as they are not exactly run by famous scientists in that area of study!
Wikipedia is an informative resource, it is supposed to deal in truth; if most skeptics took some time to properly explore psionic techniques, they'll find most of them are infact possible, just those who manage one or two advanced techniques have a tendency to blow them out of proportion to benefit their own ego. The reason most people learn psionics is in an effort to hurt others or do 'what they see on TV', which is far from what the vast majority of psions are capable of. The psipog community 'techniques', for example - are often very low on factual information and most of their staff are under the delusion they can perform certain advanced techniques (which they can't, I assure you) which make those who take a scientific interest in psionics (such as myself) 'take a hit' so to speak. Just like anything that a minority is capable of, you always get idiots who try to develop a 'god complex' above other people. The hard part is finding these people and discrediting them, as most of psionics is simply guesswork in an effort to find new skills and technqiues... not exactly a planned approach. CitrusC 20:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...I feel as if I'm not really getting anywhere. From what I've heard (and hope), more than 95% of physicists, psychologists and other scientists working in similar fields to parapsychology do not believe psionics work at all. I think it would be best to go with commonly held scientific opinion, and put up your beliefs that psionics work as the alternative and yet-to-be-justified position it is. There's no problem with giving the kind of instructions and links that are already in the article, but they should be presented from a very skeptical viewpoint. So far, no aspects of psionics have been proved conclusively (I'd have heard of it if they had), and I think we need to reflect that. The most important thing, of course, is to keep an open mind. Even I agree that psionics may exist, it's just that right now I don't think they do, and I'm pretty sure almost all professional scientists agree with me. - Green meklar

I think that psiballs are a fixture in the modern psionics community even if their authenticity is questionable. As such is should at least be mentioned. The broad sense of the word applied in this article would seem to overlap with the term 'thoughtform' used in many psi and magick circles. This is the idea that what we think springs into existence in the astral realm with a permanence comensurate with its energy. This should be included in the article since it appears to be the same things in many ways.

Easypsi?

Who put easypsi on the links section? As far as I could tell, it was a small, rather unprofessional site. I found that much of the information(with execption of a few parts in the articles section, which seemed to be credited to other people) isn't very thorough. It just seems like this link should not be there, as the site is not very good in general. It does not provide very much information about the topic(once again, with the exceptions mentioned above), the webmaster(from what I read) has been practicing psionics for one month or so(however you would define 'credible' in this case, one month of practice is not nearly long enough) , and some of the of the information is misleading. An example is the shielding 'section'(one paragraph...), he states that you can "amplify skills" with shields; which, afaik, is not possible, or very advanced. Does anyone else feel this link should not be there? Or anyone care to tell me why it should be there? 24.20.237.115, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Amplification via sheilding ('trasmitter theory', I've heard others call it) is a fairly advanced technique, I couldn't see someone with such little experience of energy manipulation managing to maintain one, let alone form it in the first place. The only other possiblilty is if it used as a 'receiver amplifier' which is apparently supposed to allow 'easy' spirit communication, although in my experience it does nothing but make empathic sensitivity stronger, usually resulting in psychopathic tendancies and paranoia.
Shields can be used for all sorts, but boosting 'output' isn't one of them, the only way this is possible is via training and experience, maybe using 'psiamp' items such as crystals as well, although I've never looked much into that area.
Anyway, the current article is in the process of being rewritten, so maybe we can add a 'Unverifed Resources (Use at your own risk) section for these kind of links - I'd even not moan about a PSIPOG link there. A covering message in the section would be a good idea, explaining that the links are not encylopedic resources, but sites offering various different explainations for psionic phenomena. [
The link was put in by an unregistered wikipedian, IP 206.148.164.233. Probably the owner of the site.CitrusC 19:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh ... hey...

Any chance this article could address the possibility that Psionic powers do not exist? Was that considered a minor detail to be left out? Is there anyone out there who holds that point of view? Should it be reflected in the article? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Any encyclopedia is designed for people to look up information, not argue this. Psionics is a term used by several thousands of people around the world to describe a type of paranormal ability, so the eyclopedic entry should offer information on what that alleged paranormal ability consists of, not some pathetic "This is APPARENTLY some sort of magical ability." - I'm sure you understand my reasoning. CitrusC 16:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm? I don't understand you're reasoning. This article is quite biased. For example, the intro:
Psionics is a term used to describe the practice of using a variety of 'psychic abilities'. Theories on how these abilities work vary greatly, but one of the more common ones involves the manipulation of an unknown energy type known as psi energy. However, it really depends on the community or school of thought. Some would consider the manipulation of any energy type psionics. Some do not even recognize the need for the manipulation of energy.
Notice that the widely held theory that such powers are impossible is not included. ^_^ I'm actually going to stick a NPOV tag on the article, as soon as I figure out how this is done. In the mean time, I suggest those contributing to the page look at similair articles about, for example, Wicca. Much of what is discussed here is essentially religious/metaphysical in nature. --Starwed 01:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
An even better article to look at would be Magic (paranormal) since the subject is very analagous to psionics.
  • Actually, there is a lot of rivalry between Wicca practitioners and Psionics users - if you said they were alike to anyone devoted to either, they'd most probably brand you a fool. The NPOV tag has saved me the effort, mind. Thank you for that. As for the religion comment... *laughs* CitrusC 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting their necessarily alike in beliefs, but that the same sort of arguments and tensions occur in their discussion. But the Wicca and Magic articles seems pretty encyclopedic, whereas this one... well, it speaks for itself. --Starwed 01:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, Novinha was in the process of rewriting the entire article while citing sources and quoting scientific articles and theorum, but (s)he hasn't submitted nor responded as to their progress, so I can only assume they gave up on it. The current is a kind of mish-mash of information originally written up by Firestorm (I think), WhiteWolf (a woman I knew a while back, she owns a community of her own, I think) and one or two others. It isn't particularly structured or developed, but the main problem is probably down to Psionics being largely unrecorded in the past - Wicca, 'magic', etc. has been recorded and documented for thousands of years, mainly preserved in religion, but as far as I've found out in my few years researching it, Psionics has no religious basis whatsoever. It's more 'about the body', if you forgive the expression.
What I'm trying to say is without one or more mainstream (read: widely accepted) resources, there are always going several cells of psionics users that disagree on various aspects such as the source and operation of Psionic energy. My aim is to examine all 'major' communities and experiment as to find a neutral point between all of the opinions, which isn't exactly an easy task. Either way, I'm leaving the editing of this article to other people and spearheading the assault on any information I know to be opinioned or ill-conceived, hence my overly strong presence in this talk page. CitrusC 02:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Gurdjieff is widely accepted as a real, contemporary 'mystic' (the Wiki page is sadly lacking, however). For scientific proof, you would want to check out 'The Conscious Universe' (several books go by that name BTW). Redxela Sinnak 13:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the original comment, this article needs to list evidence both for and against psionics.

There is such thing

There is such thing as psionics (telepathy, telekinesis, etc..). The fact is that everyone can learn it and do it just as one learns to draw, and can make art. Some people who are reffered to as 'psychic' are actualy those who are more like 'talented' artists because they are more visual-minded people. Others are good at poetry because they are more oral-minded people. Go on www.psipog.net and try reading some 'newbie' articles. The main reason why there is criticism of the existance of these abilities is because it is something that the humand mind needs to 'adapt' to. The first step is actualy believing in it. It is not as simple as just saying 'ok, ill give it a try..i believe you..', it is more like having your mind accept the fact this is real and possible. Also, it will be easier to believe when you are younger (about 13-15 and maybe to 17) than when you are above that age because an adult mind already has chose its path of beliefs and will be harder to adapt to another belief (existance of these abilities).

(*-known as subzero34g on PsiPog and on some IRC networks (nodramairc,esylum,swiftirc)*)

  • While I personally agree psionics is real; why did you make this statement? The article itself isn't really PoV against psionics. Just curious to see why you typed that up, seeing as it doesn't really apply to the article or previous discussions. =) 24.20.237.115 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I believe that as long as a disclaimer is included stating that psionics has not been proven, there should be no problem writing the rest of the article as if it does, indeed, exist. Firestorm 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems pretty obvious to me. He's from Psipog. I'm assuming he's been brainwashed by their 'staff' *sharp laugh* into thinking anyone capable of writing a disclaimer (see above the external links, Firestorm) that suggests Psionics MIGHT NOT BE REAL is instantly a skeptic and must be bombarded with drivel and opinion until they vacate the premisis or give in to their nonsense. You should see how their chatroom works, if anyone brings up a logical argument they are instantly banned. If anyone disagrees with the opinions of staff, they are instantly banned... surely a community should be run be respectable adults, not incompetant children? Speaking of children, notice that the age pointed out to 'accept' psionics is that of children? Seems pretty odd to me that his 'community' would target the most gulliable age bracket, especially when scientific research of the matter suggests age doesn't play a key role, bar common sense.
But yes, I'm veering from my original point - they can bitch and cry about it as much as they want, unless someone can come up with solid scientific proof of Psionics /as it is portrayed on their website/, then the warning will have to remain.
I'm not a skeptic, before anyone asks, I just disagree with nazi-centered communities that don't have a clue what they're talking about sending clueless members to try and counter a scientific argument with masses of horse manure, as opposed to scientific evidence... CitrusC 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw the disclaimer above the links, but I feel that one should be put in the top of the article as well, to get it out of the way that psi has not been proven. Firestorm 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, do you want to write one up or shall I adapt mine to cover the entire article? I/you might as well mention that the article isn't designed to debate the existance of Psionics, just so we don't get vandals from the communities messing with it. CitrusC 10:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • what do you mean by 'nazi-centered communities', please explain before i take it as something offensive. (*-known as subzero34g on PsiPog and on some IRC networks (nodramairc,esylum,swiftirc)*)
  • It is intended to directly insult the Psipog community. They aren't happy unless they've got an 'iron grip' on the actions of their members. I've spoken to a few science-based psions who have gone there in the hope of learning alternative theories who have simply been rebounded by the staff, as I mentioned in the post before. Sounds very nazi-centered if you ask me. CitrusC 10:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
i made it to give just a bit of information on how to view what psionics is. I don't want people to start mentioning how its all a scam, etc. Like above, "Speaking of children, notice that the age pointed out to 'accept' psionics is that of children? Seems pretty odd to me that his 'community' would target the most gulliable age bracket, especially when scientific research of the matter suggests age doesn't play a key role, bar common sense.", this is something people like to conclude because they see it as "this age of poeple are gullible so sites like PsiPog target these people and make them think what THEY want them to think" but instead its more like how i explained it above (and that is another reason why i said what i said above). Let me explain what i said above in a bit more detail: Adults have set their paths in life, they have 'fixed' beliefs which are MUCH harder to change that off a 'teen' (age 13-17). People in this age range, 13-17, don't have 'fixed' beliefs and conclusions about things, they are more open-minded in their stage of mind development. This is why teens who find a site that explains what psionics is and how to be able to do telekinesis, for example, are interested in these sites (they are more open-minded; if you didn't get the point already). (not to be rude but..) Even though i realized that it would be great if everyone would take part in going beyond what general intelligence they have, basic physics/biology/etc knowledge, and do learn a few of the psionic abilities, it is impossible because of how many ignorant people there are. This is also the reason why i said the first step is believing it because if your mind doesnt get this fact straight then it will be impossible to be able to do any of the abilities. (If you haven't noticed, in addition to trying to argue and reduce the amount of ignorance to psionics, i am giving some things i learned previously.) (*-known as subzero34g on PsiPog and on some IRC networks (nodramairc,esylum,swiftirc)*)
  • "I don't want people to start mentioning how its all a scam, etc." I said no such thing. I know for a fact that Psionics is an real set of paranormal abilities, I simply don't accept every single thing I read on the internet without conducting proper scientific testing or reading in depth testing done by other people. From what I've seen on the Psipog website, they've simply rewritten information from the other, older (most now defunct) sites and given it their own unique 'if you don't think it isn't real, it won't work for you' twist, and you already know my views on their chatroom. CitrusC 10:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Although I can see Subzero's point, I have to agree with CitrusC on this one. The point of this article is not whether or not it exists, but as for the more specific beliefs as to the how/why, I would like to see some evidence beyond Pog. Judging by the Pog chat, which is filled with young people who will NOT accept the possibility that the Pog methods and ideas may not be entirely acurate while citing absolutely nothing scientific, the Pog information not the and-all, be-all. There are some exceptions to this type of pogger, although they usually find their way to another organisation. However, anybody going in there looking for scientific information will likely be shunned and/or kickbanned. The staff there does not seem to want other viewpoints to be presented to 'their' followers, peebrain (the webmaster) being a possible exception. Firestorm 20:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel it's rather a moot point trying to say that that psionics can be proven or disproven. That's like saying love can be proven or disproven. Sure, it's [love] is something most of us have felt, but I dare any one of you to prove it. Now, if you were a clever bastard, you might think to test levels of PEA (a hormone) in the frontal lobe, or blood flow changes when a person encounters someone they find attractive. But is this really proof of love? Not entirely. The same thing goes for psionics. It appears to function in a zone where most of our instruments do not detect. I say most because there have been documented experiments, both with Zener cards and micropsychokinesis. The zener cards showed after thousands of trials that certain individuals were able to score higher (statistically significant) than normal probabiltity. The Micro-PK experiments involved floppy disks with a pre-recorded series of 1's and 0's. Subjects were able to changed the ratio from 1:1 (I'm sorry I don't have any concrete data at this point this is all from memory. I do know that many, if not most of these tests showed statistical significance, i.e. variation greater than 5%) This I believe to be entirely scientific data.

I am not trying to prove it to anyone (I have plenty of proof myself, I have moved a piece of paper under a jar while sitting two meters from it. You can argue wind turbulence all you want, I still don't see logically how air currents could affect something in a sealed jar) I'm just saying there is enough evidence out there for it not to be dismissed.

Oh, here's some scientific data by the way: "The present study confirms the existence of the effect under particularly well-controlled conditions where the participation of independent observers precludes experimenter error, or even fraud." Schmidt, Helmut <a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/observ.html"> OBSERVATION OF A PSYCHOKINETIC EFFECT UNDER HIGHLY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS</a>

Energy Section

These two sentences bother me: "Common distinctions are between 'life energy', 'earth energy', and psi energy. Those who make these distinctions usually do so on the basis that the different energies have a different 'feel' to them, and thus can be separated."

What bothers me is that it implies ALL practitioners of psionics believe in 'earth energy' or 'life energy'; which isn't true, and it also implies that people who practice psionics are nutjobs who take the astrology section in the newspaper seriously. 24.20.237.115 23:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I see your point. What is your suggested rewrite? I'd person advise making sure you put in a 'some Psions believe there are several different types of energy', etc. I might rewrite it if no-one else can be bothered. CitrusC 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure; I have a feeling I wouldn't do it justice, so I'll leave the actual rewriting to someone else. However, what ever the rewritten section looks like, it should mention(if not emphasize) that some subscribe to a spiritual theory of psionics and some try to rationalize it as best they can. I agree that a rewritten sentence about the different types of energy should be there too. The hard thing to do is trying to cover all the major theories/ideas about the subject equally.
  • In my learning of psionics, i still have doubts about psi as the energy one uses to do things like telekinesis. I believe that there is only energy and we simply manipulate energy and 'program' it to do telepathy, but for telekinesis it would be simply moving it and hitting your target. To be more advanced in telekinesis, you would have to learn how to be able to move the target how ever you want to. (from the little amount of time i had to practice, my only success was being able to get my 'pinwheel' to move by not whichever direction i wanted it to turn). By the way, i really think the people who discuss this here should take a little peak at the 'newbie' section of PsiPog and a few other articles, if you wish. Then you would have a better understanding of where my ideas form from.

Also, is the section on theories of what 'psi' is(i.e. nervous system waste, life energy, etc.), or theories on the nature of psi(how it behaves/works)? The section seems to start on what it is, then it shifts to how it works. If it is supposed to be on both, then it should almost be two sections; or one large section divided into two sub-sections. I apologize if I seem to be creating more questions than answers. 24.20.237.115 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • That's nothing that has never been confirmed, although you'd need one hell of a research team to find it out. *laughing* I'm certainly not going to come up with any results with my paltry lab. CitrusC 01:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you may have misunderstood me; perhaps a better term to use would be 'speculation' instead of 'theories' which have been suggested. Either way, to me at least, that section seems to jump from topic to topic. 24.20.237.115 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation needed?

I think this article would be a prime candidate for mediation. There are too many opposing viewpoints clashing and too many people editing the article without regard for NPOV or Wikipedia conventions. I'm not saing it needs the ArbComm, but perhaps something like the Mediation Cabal would do the trick. Firestorm 19:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Firestorm claims "At the very least, the major sites should stay." -- WHAT major sites? If there are major sites out there, let's link to them, but little discussion board sites and organizations created by just some guy who puts a fancy name on it do not count as major sites. The vast majority of those are outright self-promotional vanity spam, added to this article and a bunch of ohers here solely to drive traffic to them, and the rest are unremarkable pages of no informational value. Please see Wikipedia:External links for what should and should not be linked to. By the way, Firestorm, you wouldn;t happen to run any of those sites you are objecting to the removal of, would you? DreamGuy 22:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No, I don't run any of the sites listed on there. From the several years i've spent with psionics, i've seen that the largest and most notable organizations seem to be Psipog, the Psion Guild, and the Veritas Academy (Vsociety). The rest, i'm not sure about, and I would put forth little objection to an attempt to remove those. Firestorm 22:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Firestorm, if one were to take even a day searching the psionics community, psipog, psion guild, and Veritas seem to be the three primary sites. When I first began looking at websites on the subject, it was those three which other sites seemed to link to, and which people seemed to point to. Psionline.org, could or could not be appropriate as a link, depending on which side you want to argue, it has a few interesting articles, and some forums, that's about it; however it does provide a more level-headed community than psipog does, and the articles could be informative to read if one is attempting to practice. Even though I personally would like to see it in the links section, I would probably not put it there due to repetitivness(sp?) and the fact that it can be found on the links page on psipog. Can't comment on the other sites. I still don't understand how psipog, psion guild, and Veritas are spam; as I understand spam in wikipedia, those three sites are not spam. 24.20.237.115 04:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Good luck trying to find sites that DO contain encylopedic material, DreamGuy. As I said in a rather large post somewhere up there *gestures up* Psionics has never had a base in religion or similar, so you won't find many sites offering much else than opinion. Although I disagree Psipog should be up there due to research I've done in the past, the Vcad staff are fairly stable and I've heard one or two positive whispers about the psion guild, although I'm fairly sure it's new (I've not heard of it in the past). Dimensional Doorways is the 'original' Psionics website, going back a fair few years; I can't recall any earlier than that, although there are plenty of books on the subject, most errornously describing it as a 'power' or 'Psy'.
Anyway, I'm happy to have the page link-free, providing the information is accurate. It really needs a full on rewrite, like the one promised by Novina a while back. Quite a touchy subject to do an article on, as there is huge range of opinion in the subject. CitrusC 16:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've taken my argument to DreamGuy's talk page at User talk:DreamGuy#Psionics article in the hopes of resolving this dispute calmly and sanely. I've decided not to fight for most of the links; i'm limiting my arguments to the removal of Psipog, the Psion Guild, and Veritas. and no, the Psion Guild is not new. It hasn't officially opened for membership, but its articles, IRC room, and forum have been active since the 90's, if memories serve mne correctly. Firestorm 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been looking through DreamGuy's talk page and he looks be be a griefer, and judging from what I've seen of your conversation with him to far, it might be a better idea to report him as vandalising the page, maybe even suggesting he be blocked from editing it, as he is trying to warp the wikilaw to his own perversions. To a small degree, he does have a point - I personally think there should be no links whatsoever - but I completely disagree with his mocking attitude towards others (that is mainly based upon another argument he has been involved in, although his suggestion you may be an owner of one of the sites suggests it) and the way he has approached this situation. CitrusC 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say that I do NOT own any of the sites listed, and I have removed some of the links in an effort to compromise, leaving only the major notable ones. The tiny, non-notable, possibly vanity or advertising links have been removed. I had applied for page protection, but it was denied on account of too little evidence of vandalism and not enough reason for protection. DreamGuy: I'm extending the olive branch, will you accept? Firestorm 00:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly not vandalism, DreamGuy is engaged in a good-faith attempt to remove linkspam. I'm sure you guys can work it out between you, with a little flexibility on both sides. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Firestorm can't be trusted, as he is the admin of a part of the psion guild, the site he is objecting the removal of. From my experiences, VSociety, Psion Guild, and the Psiworld are the "biggies" _just_ because they have the most members. scienceisyourfriend 08:18, 14 August 2008 (EST)

Something missing here...

Given that (as far as I'm aware) a fairly large proportion of people consider that psionics is complete bollocks, there is a remarkable lack of any dissenting or balancing oipinion in this article. The pseudoscience category and the tags show that it's disputed, but there's nothing about the nature of the dispute, and no links to dissenting views at all. That ain't normal. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There are some major things missing here, including NPOV, scholarly journal sources, and actual research. There are some things that shouldn't be here, including bickering between various 'psionics organizations' and so further. Frankly, this is how I see it: the individual who rewrites this will need to have actually studied it in a scholarly fashion. They CANNOT be a "student" of psionics, per se. A practitioner, perhaps, but not someone who is thinking that they need to support their 'theories.' A good place to start would be some works of non-fiction. For example, Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Schroeder's "Psychic Discoveries: The Iron Curtain Lifted" or other books which discuss the science and history without any kind of bollocks from the people currently involved.
There should be NO links to any of those organizations that keep popping up. None of them have scholarly and encyclopedic information to contribute. Wikipedia is not a "how to" site, except inasmuch as it provides encyclopedic information from which one could often deduce how to do something. The current "read all the links for better understanding" is worthless and perhaps even infantile. Those websites do not contribute to what psionics is. I hope to work more extensively on this page to make it conform to a much higher standard. I may start a replacement page. MrKeith2317 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

False advertising?

Is it just me, or has this entire article become an indirect advertisement for The Psion Guild?

- It would appear the guild folks have inappropriately appropriated the article. So have several others. They seem to be treating this article as a way of waging a theory war, or support their own community's growths, without actually acknowledging the fact that the entire system is part of a fringe culture. See above, where I may be rewriting it, hopefully from a NPOV, and will do so that people may see it and comment. MrKeith2317 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is in serious bad shape. I just added "It is dismissed by the vast majority of scientific scholarship" to the intro. It is utterly inappropriate for this article to not contain some such disclaimer in the intro. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree. While the majority of people do accept the existance of anomalous phenomena, the basis is not in this current form. These things are, largely, dismissed, or rather, unacknowledged...especially the information being put forth in the link websites. The fact that not one mention of "biofeedback" or "bioplasma" or "bioenergetics" are made shows that the article is not researched or encyclopedic. MrKeith2317 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I came across a various different resources arguing that BioPK and related was more along the lines of will than actual psionics, so I didn't feel the need to bring it up. Judging by the rules of TK and microTK, I see it being entirely possible... but on a base level it is still just trying to will your body into modifiying itself. Still, it would be worth bringing up the theory that BioPK and related uses psionic energy in the same way other abilities would. I'm undecided. CitrusC 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


I wasn't mentioning BioPK, I was talking about the standard explanations for what this "psi energy" is. The Russians were largely convinced it was a form of "bioplasma." What you're talking about is closer to Koestler Lab's "DMILS," which it seems is also largely related. MrKeith2317 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually wasn't, but whatever you think. I was more trying to explain that there are several of areas which are not mentioned in the article. CitrusC 00:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.

Getting bored with all these people just leaping in and editing because they think they are right. Who's for getting this article deleted? The promised scientific-based rewrite by Novinha has failed to show, so I think it would be better removing the article all together. Would much rather the article didn't exist than have to constantly put up with ignorant fools that doubt the existance of such abilities. CitrusC 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support deletion while maintaining discussion until I am or someone else is able to write a researched article. I would much rather the article didn't exist than have to constantly put up with poor rhetoricians who rely on ad hominem attacks to make themselves seem more correct despite the lack of evidence of such abilities in the scientific mainstream. MrKeith2317 20:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have come of the opinion that any rewrite of this article should be modeled on the Magick and Magic_(paranormal) articles, which regards it as a belief system and abilities as functions of belief, when present, without assuming the real or unreal nature of the phenomena. This article entirely assumes the existence of psionic functioning, which, while it is a reality to practitioners, is often not a reality to those who do not practice. MrKeith2317 20:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm liking the style of them. Any takers on a rewrite, or any more for/against article deletion until someone is willing to do a rewrite in this manner? I'd be more than happy to contribute, although only in the talk page. CitrusC 21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ignorant fools..." Just because someone disagrees with you limey doesnt't mean that they're ignorant or foolish. People are just going on what the scientific community at large thinks. Otherwise they're just going on personal experience, just as you are. What makes them wrong and you right? Just because you believe in it doesn't mean that what other people believe is wrong. Although i personally believe in poeople's mental capacity, because of the fact that you think only your beliefs are right, the only ignorant fool is you. _ Lue3378 22:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, that's the gist of it. See my comment on this user's propensity for ad hominem attacks above. MrKeith2317 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that would be a negative. I've been researching Psionics for a good few years now, and found quite a few positive results; as of yet unpublished. Skeptics - as with those who follow organised religion - are nothing but people who haven't yet woken up to the real world. I used to be a skeptic myself, so I realise the delusions you maintain - I completely disregard other's opinions when it comes to my research subjects, and maintain my original statement. After all, I think you'll find people in general comprised a larger ignorent mass - how do you think religion managed to get such a stranglehold in the west? Anyway, lay off the personal attacks before I am forced to report you to an administrator for harassment; I made a true statement, so your slanderous remarks towards myself could easily be seen as 'trolling'. CitrusC 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
"As yet unpublished" = can't be covered in Wikipedia, per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVUW and probably half a dozen other things too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's why I've not made any direct contributions to the article; there are aspects of psionics that even I am not yet sure of, so I try to mediate when I can... it's all gone belly up lately, though. I don't want to rush out documents just for an encyclopedic entry, so I doubt they'll be published for a good few years, yet. CitrusC 15:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"true statement.." just merely pointing out that most people don't believe in it, even though some, myself included, do. I was pointing out your non-NPOV by saying others were "ignorant fools" and redirected your own insult. If you can't handle your own insults, well, that's your concern. And on the subject of reporting me, I had no idea I was harassing you limey(a term of endearment of course). I will cease and desist from any and all future provocation, seeing as we share the same beliefs on this article. Besides, I already lost interest on this matter, anyways Lue3378 06:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So CitrusC, which took longer to develop, your psychic powers or your overblown ego? Cog05 04:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, for you CitrusC know I could be older than you. I'm not, but you never know. Anyway, I had a question about all of this psionics stuff. I'm familiar with things like telepathy and telekinesis, etc., but some of the stuff on this page I've never heard of, including the whole psionics label, which I just thought was a D&D thing. So I'm wondering when and where did this current psionic community and particular strain of thought concerning it develop. I know you're advocating deleting this page, but this seems to be a legitimate social phenomenona, and while I think the actual psionics thing is bogus, I would be interested in seeing more about the development of these ideas. If that makes sense to you. Cog05 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, now that is the kind of response I don't mind replying to. Most of it seems to stem from fairly modern literature (D&D included), and the use of the term 'psi' in the soviet animal telepathy experiments. I personally think it is a term to try and distance 'psychics' from 'psionics' - most people who claim to be 'psychic' are (the vast majority of the time) taking the piss or fraudulant; as far as I can tell, psionics is simply a modern (and as aformentioned, possibly used to distance 'real' users) term for classic 'psychic' phenomena. That and it is more centered to using energy generated by the body than 'spirit guides' and the related theories that fall under the 'psychic' catagory. The current generation of psionic community seems to be based more around getting 'followers' than actually teaching any useful information, as can be seen on some of them that used to be linked to on here. I can confirm (although I doubt the word of 'someone on the internet' means much to you) that psionics does indeed exist, albiet not quite to the scale some of the communities would try to lead you to believe.
I'm all up for an article on psionics, providing the writer was able to cite published scientific works. As I've said in the past, 'psipog' and one or two other communities don't have a clue what they are talking about, and communities that have the general theories correct tend to let their own egos get in the way, and blow it out of proportion... and they wonder why no-one takes them seriously! I hope I've answered your question, if not, feel free to clarify or ask about specifics. Please bear in mind that although my ideas are developed from the works of many, many others, they are still my opinions. CitrusC 22:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Psionics as an addition to Wikipedia

Unfortunately the concept(s) of 'psionics' is/are hotly debated not only in the psionics community, but also in the larger scientific community. There are no scientifically proven psi experiments that aren't themselves debunked, or dismissed for data issues, or reworked numbers. What this creates is a mish-mash of people where some choose to believe in psi and some choose not to believe in psi. The word 'choose' must be used here, because there is no official evidence to firmly support either side of the argument confirming or denying the existence of psi and/or psionics.

Are there scientific studies available confirming the existence of psi and related abilities? Yes. Are there scientific studies available confirming the non-existence of psi and related abilities? Yes.

Perhaps the approach of a psionics article should be from almost a pseudo-religious, or belief stand-point where it is clearly shown what psionics is considered to be by those that choose to believe in it and where those beliefs fail as given by those that choose not to believe. This would allow for a balanced Wikipedia article outlining psionics.

So there is no confusion I do believe and practice 'psi' though I am completely open and agree with the right to not practice, or believe in 'psi'. And yes, I do run one of the older 'psi' communities known as the Psi Palatium. Above all though is the right to believe upon what one knows and understands.

Zeus

This is clearly correct, as was pointed out above, the model of the articles on magick are perhaps the best for use in this article. MrKeith2317 20:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not got a problem with using that as a basis, along as any religious comments don't come into it. Won't be much trouble for the unlucky individual who is asked to rewrite it to avoid the use of certain religion-related words, although 'belief' is a fairly good one, as it suggests a literal belief, as opposed to some deeper religious meaning. CitrusC 01:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Religion also uses Psi so I wouldn't see why religious reference would be a problem, you pray to a god for something to happen with faith, which is not too different from belief except true faith is closer to a knowing, with no doubt... belief can come with doubts, it is the same energy used in Psi which would answer the prayer: (the quantum unified field/pure conscious aware energy) The only problem with religion and this topic is that religion is not open minded and tries to tell people what "truth" is with opinion and hear-say, Psi is scientifically evident through quantum science, the delayed choice experiment.. unified field, self evident circumstances etc, this is essentially what religions refer to as "God" it is the cause of all existence, it has no beginning and no end, it is omnipresent and therefor is also all knowing, and it is science.

When more than one person focus on a particular event it is stronger than one person, this is like the religious saying of Christianity where two or more are gathered in my name, there I will be in their midst. Psionic energy is also claimed an ability in Christianity when Jesus says even the least among you can do all that I have done and more, and when the woman touches his cloak and is healed he says to her it is your faith which has healed you (her own psionic ability) there is really much in common between Psionics and religious ideas71.112.198.228 (talk)

Psionics as an RPG Term?

Can we add some information on the use of Psionics in Text based RPGs (Such as Ayenee) and the use of Psionics in book-based RPGs?

  • If someone would be willing to make the subsection - I've never bothered learning about the origins of the word, although I'm fairly sure I heard a few roleplaying people I know mention it while discussing the unholy things they discuss back in college. CitrusC 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Psionics is the name of a variant magic system used in the d20 system (Dungeons and Dragons). One of the base psionic using classes is the psion. --Cog05 04:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As I saw it, psionics as an RPG term is a subset of the far more vast use of psionics in fiction, and that deserved at least its own section of this article, so I made the appropriate edits. Please, let me know what you think. I tried very hard not to fall into one of the oldest and most common Wikipedia traps: turning every topic relating to fiction into a laundry list of examples. -Harmil 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care about this page, or the links, but please stop removing them without justification. We understand that for a topic that has nothing to do with "science", the links are unscientific. If they are not informative, let's discuss it and decide which are useful and why. -Harmil 04:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave justification. Wikipedia isn't a links repository. Ardenn 04:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
And you feel that that justifies removing these links, how? They seem (to my eye) to be links to sites with further information, meeting the criteria for External Links sections in WP:STYLE. The problem? Just removing them without discussion seems to me to be a bit heavy-handed. -Harmil 04:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
WP:BOLD, WP:IGNORE, WP:SENSE. Ardenn 04:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
We can all cite the guidelines, as we've all been here for a long time, but that does not change the fact that you're failing to communicate your concerns. Please, list the links that you have concerns about and describe those concerns. Then, we can discuss them. -Harmil 05:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
My concern is that the links are irrelevant, they don't add any value to the article, no are they sources. Ardenn 05:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
What particular content were you looking for, and what did you find? Were they just message boards (clearly non-authoritative, and too temporal for Wikipedia)? I followed one of the links when they were first added, and it seemed like a very good introduction to the kind of mythology that was being constructed around the idea of psionics. I don't happen to think that any of it relates to reality, but I did find the link useful and informative. I think that was called psipogs or something like that. -Harmil 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
No, strike that. psipogs or whatever was the useless one. I almost deleted that myself. Registration required to read anything there. -Harmil 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Bad, bad, bad me! Sorry about that! I block flash animantions, so I did not know that the flash banner at the top actually lead to useful content that was unprotected! I put the link back, but made it point directly to the articles section so that useful information could be had without Flash support. -Harmil 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and read the linked sites, and selected the three that were actually informative. Then I narrowed the links to informational pages within those sites. Please let me know what you think of these particular links. Thanks. -Harmil 13:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Psionline website is pretty much a spinoff of the psipog website, the information looks pretty much identical as well, so I'm not happy with it being up there. The Psion Guild one is ok, as it is actually giving useful information, not a poorly written article 'influenced' from a larger (and misinformed) community. CitrusC 16:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"Misinformed"? That's a hard state to be in when you're talking about pseudo-science, isn't it? Certainly there are many camps of "psioncs researchers" all with their own ideas, all of equal merit in terms of documenting the cultural phenomenon, no? -Harmil 19:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I stand by my original statement, psionics is to be researched in a scientific enviroment, not a bunch of nutjobs thinking they can 'teach' others to use the abilities. If you want to learn psionic abilities, look into one of the various books availible on the subject - that way you can learn at your own pace, not have some overzealous mental breathing down your neck. CitrusC 00:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I added "Veritas Society" to the list and included a direct link to their Psi articles. I believe their information to be rather good along with the other sites provided on the list so I hope you all approve. Wilrader 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I stand by Ardenn on this matter, as well as as the Wikipedia rules/guidelines relating to primary research, etc. If something can't be verified (read: making it an encylopedic resource) then there is no need to link externally to it. I also advise you take a look at Psiwheel as well, since that contains mucho unverified data and more of these crazy 'psipog' external links. I'm going to go and tag it for wikifing and cleanup. CitrusC 00:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But you fail to realize that the entire article can't be "verified". There are to many differing points of view and beliefs that a single article on Wikipedia (which could very well be biased) shouldn't be the only source for something so scientifically un-verifiable. Until science gives us a definitive reason as to why such feats may or may not be possible we should allow linking to other articles which give differing points of view. Wilrader 00:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely an online encylopedia should have ENCYCLOPEDIC external links to it? Why do you think I applied to have the article deleted beforehand; because there isn't enough factual information to blatently prove the existance of psionics. However, if the article is going to remain, I believe it should be kept as encyclopedic as possible, not the aformentioned 'Links Respositry'.CitrusC 01:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes none of the other sites valid enough? You can't scientifically prove or disprove Psionics currently so why are we saying which links can and can not be allowed? Each person is entitled to form their own opinion, and not allowing them access to those other opinions is just as bad as passing off your opinion as fact. Each page that was linked before contained information that the other didn't -- sure, some of them have some pretty whacky ideas, but since this isn't scientific fact you can't make that distinction. In the end it's the end-users choice what they are to believe (when it comes to an un-scientifically proven article) -- we should only provide all the information we can and allow them the option to form an opinion. Wilrader 01:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't we put the note at the end of it like the previous version then? If we are going to allow these 'resources' then we should at least put a warning so people know there is a high chance the information there is complete and utter bullsh*t. I'd also recommend mentioning that they are made up entirely of primary research, so you don't get any scientific minds wasting time by clicking them then having to move to the holy 'back' button. CitrusC 01:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, because we don't want scientists investing prescious time checking into every possible aspect of something that isn't proven scientific fact yet -- that's just crazy talk! All kidding and sarcasm aside -- that sounds fair. Wilrader 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a links directory. Ardenn 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yet you have countless other pages here at Wikipedia that have External Links to pages that provide extended information pertaining to the subject that was spoken of in those very pages. Also refering to that very same page, "What should be linked to", one could say that numbers 4, 5, and 6 pertain here. While this subject doesn't fall into the "Links to normally avoid" category as this is not a scientifically factual page. Stop hiding behind that link, which I've seen you post several times lately, and provide a real reason because obviousley that isn't your only reason for feeling so strongly. Wilrader 02:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, there's a disconnect here. CitrusC, please get this, because you're going to suffer quite a lot of pain in coping with Wikipedia articles about religion and pseudosciences unless you do: this is not an article about, nor are the external links about science. It's not about math or even a particularly well defined belief system. This is about a collection of general concepts, loosely refered to by the public as "psionics". There are lots of people out there who think they have magical/paranormal powers, and that has an impact on our culture and our society. As such, it's an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia should document that topic and the breadth of sites out there that claim to have authoritative information about the topic. However, that does not mean that they're right. External links for any belief system or popular psuedoscience are, by their nature, not scientific. That does NOT make them poor sources of information about the topic any more than a Powerpuff Girls external link is a poor source of information. We don't complain that we can't verify that little girls fly... we know that. The external links aren't for that purpose. -Harmil 17:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever you say, although I'm much less interested in your babble and more interested in when you are going to add the footnote explaining that the links should be taken with a pinch of salt. I'll keep removing them until something along those lines is readded to the article. (I'm not going to write it as there is no need for me to, I'm much happier just treating your link readdition edits as vandalism). =D CitrusC 19:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, i'm also happy with the links section. However, i'd appreciate a vote to get an official consensuson whether or not it should be changed, so the next J. Random Idiot or anonymous editor who comes along can't just delete them and say that no consensus was reached.Firestorm 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

  • I have only a comment: this page needs quite a lot of work, and quite a lot less argument and procedure. It needs historical information, and a lot of work on how it fits into Wikipedia as a whole, an specifically with pages like Parapsychology, which duplicates much of this article's content. -Harmil 23:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the links - The presence of links with cultural and contextual information on this topic is essential. I think the presence of a warning is inappropriate and contrary to NPOV, because the issue of "correctness" of a link on a controversial page should not be addressed by an article which attempts to be neutral. The NPOV policy would make it inappropriate to edit White House to preface the link to whitehouse.gov with a warning that it may contain government propaganda, and the NPOV would similarly make a warning like is currently present inappropriate. Regardless, the access to information is the more important issue. I also agree with Harmil's comment that the page needs substantial improvement and expansion of depth. AdamCR 09:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Firestorm, I honestly do not see any articles on that page. I suggest looking again. "Education" and "Training" are not links, so there is nothing to click on. In the html source they are simply headers with no urls, so it is not a rendering problem. If the content you are referring to exists, please figure out the correct link before restoring. Thanks. AdamCR 22:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The site uses frames, and nearly every link is an image, which makes it hard to navigate. I'm all for dropping it on that basis, but here's the layout:
Overall, it's much what one would expect. A series of poorly written articles with advice on how to imagine that you are working with magical powers. Keep or drop; I'll leave the call up to others. -Harmil 02:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, i'm going to make this simple. On student.html, there are two big buttons that say 'Education Documents' and 'training Documents', respectively. Behing those two large buttons are the articles. They link to educationdocs.html and trainingdocs.html. I'll even be nice and post the snippet of source code that has the links on them:
  • <*center><a href="educationdocs.html"><img src="images/educationdocbut.gif" border=0></a><a href="trainingdocs.html"><img src="images/trainingdocbut.gif" border=0></a>

  • Note that the Center tag does not have a * on it in the real source code.

Firestorm 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. The links are all images (with no alt text), and the entire site uses frames in a very strange way (one large frame, enclosing the entire page). It's just a badly designed page, but that doesn't mean that its information isn't valuable. That determination should be made independant of the quality of the design (and I take no position on that point). -Harmil 18:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
":Overall, it's much what one would expect. A series of poorly written articles with advice on how to imagine that you are working with magical powers. Keep or drop; I'll leave the call up to others. -Harmil 02:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)" You're not taking a position on this? Your position seems clear to me. Although, the new, PHP version of the documents may be up, i'll have to go check. The PHP versions of the other pages seem much easier to navigate. If the articles are up in PHP, i'll change the link to that version. Firestorm 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You have mistaken my inability to take the material seriously with a sense of its utility to Wikipedia. Those are distinct topics. The material itself is garden-variety psychic-power-related writing, mostly focusing on closing your eyes and trying to make your fingers tingle, and as such it is quite appropriate here. However, the site is also poorly designed for navigation which makes it somewhat less useful. Thus my statement that I had no strong opinion on its use one way or the other. As far as evaluating the material on its own merits as fact or fiction... well, that's outside of the scope of our reference to it, and I don't think we should take that up here. -Harmil 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The PHP site IS up now and should be easier to navigate. www.psionguild.org/php FxChiP 03:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Psionics:Flight

Theoretically, if a person who has telekinesis/psychokinesis applies that to his/her body, he/she can FLY. Would save a lot on air fare and the sexual/anal probes at the airports. That is not a joke. I've seen some inexplicable things myself, and investigated a lot of paranormal incidents. Martial Law 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :)

yeah there is no (theoretically) reson that psychokinesis whould not work on your own body, it was in dark city i think Joeyjojo 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The amount of energy required to fly would be immense. Not only would you have to get the initial lift, you would have to sustain yourself in the air. And you have to prevent yourself from tiring out, lest you be flying thousands of feet in the air and suddenly poop out. In short, even if you do manage it for a short time, you do have to land. FxChiP 03:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Using telekinesis on your own body would not allow you to fly, it would only let you make yourself explode. To fly, you would need to move every other particle in the universe. This is (theoretically) quite impractical. Levitation, on the other hand, is a much simpler, albeit rarer, ability, and can be used for this purpose. Orange112 19:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

????? And you base this on...? Noclevername 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Telepaths and Psychokineticists Categories

Heh, made a bit of a mistake in the history, so now it just has a weird message referencing an edit that I made, but didn't actually save, lol. Just wanted to let you know what I did; I removed Psionics from the Fictional Telepaths and Fictional Psychokineticists categories because of the PoV issue and the fact that it makes no sense.(Psionics isn't even a character in the first place)

Sorry for the confusion my edit tag may have caused!

24.20.237.115 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference to 'bioenergy'

Since bioenergy redirects to biofuel, it didn't seem appropriate to have a reference to it in the energy section. I removed it and reworded the end of the paragraph slightly. --Drunk Monkey 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Psi: Keep as is!

You Guessed It! Keep this article as it is! Michael 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

I'd suggest either rewording some of the descriptions under Passive abilities, or renaming that section, as influencing someones mind/feelings would not really be passive. Noclevername 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing the link to -kinesis since that page no longer contains paranormal definitions. Noclevername 13:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Psionics?

has any person ever done a real rigorous study on this subject? moving things with your mind, why havent i seen someone do this on the news yet? ohh yeah cause it isnt real

What you think isn't particularly relevant to the quality of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.60.107 (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I'ts pretty far-feched, but to each [their] own

Lots of people spend lots of time studying and testing the subject (see parapsychology). The fact that they haven't gotten any conclusive or widely accepted experimental results yet is an indication that it may not be real, but the same is true of string theory; in science, it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, only that it's hard to find. (Oh, and if something is or isn't in the news media has nothing to do with its truth or provability.) Noclevername 18:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"I think i'm being watched"

Evryone seems to be able to perceive when they're being watched. could that be worked into ESP?

I must not be everyone then, because I've been caught by surprise many times by someone I didn't know was watching me. Noclevername 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you could fit it into ESP, but it wouldn't be easy. Clairvoyance? Precognition? Not sure... —Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mind Control

Is this in the "see also" section of "mind control?

Notable?

If this subject is notable, it needs to be sourced. I'd like people who know something about it to source it. I'll put in some citation requests if more are needed, and then come back later and delete. But personally, I can't find sources for it. Martinphi (Talk ? Contribs) 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Change of tack

Okay, given that the majority of people will know of it's use in Science Fiction, how about focusing on that as opposed to referring to it as a "practice" in the first line? Any article that states:

"The "psi" catalyst, as with many paranormal forces, is often referred to generally as an "energy" whose physical properties are generally thought to be difficult or impossible to measure in terms of standard or current physics (see Spiritual energy)"

Referring to this as an ACTUAL phenomenon (possibly) IMPOSSIBLE to detect is tripe! Actual phenomenon are, by definition, scientifically observable! Honestly I came to this article hoping to find an article similar to Hyperspace (science fiction). Portraying psionics as a phenomenon with describable properties is down-right misleading. The only mention of this, outside of "neutral" wording ("Often said..", "purported...", "said that..." is half way down the page:

"This subject is viewed with skepticism by most mainstream scientists and is considered pseudoscience because the nature of energy as defined by modern science does not generally support it being formed in or staying in a spherical shape without an enclosure of some kind. There have been no controlled scientific studies showing support for the existence of constructs.[citation needed]"

This is not only not good enough, but utter bollocks. Energy in modern science (if left to its own devices) doesn't have "shape" at all, to say that the only objection to "psionics" as realistic is because of a lack of an enclosure renders this article simply fraudulent!

If there's significant agreement I would like to propose a re-write with this in mind. mr_happyhour 04/04/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.101.149.170 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC).


This subject is not notable except in fiction (it has a slight connection to parapsychology). If it is not deleted, it should be written as an article about fictional powers. Martinphi (Talk ? Contribs) 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, at the time of this comment, everything except for the first section is about psionics in fiction... —Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Major Changes

every statement which has been labelled with the "citation needed" (or {{fact|date=}} tag) is subject to immediate deletion. if someone can't give a source (per Wikipedia:Verifiability and related) for them immediately, they are going to go away. don't bother simply removing the tags, it's the statements which are being challenged. Whateley23 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed the fat

I removed a large chunk of fictional and game examples as uneeded and unencyclopedic. If someone starts a "psychic powers in fiction" list, fine, add them there. But this isn't the page for it. Let's avoid list-bloat. -- Noclevername (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But all those kinetic abilities that were removed are not fictional all except for dynamkinesis as that is the ability to manipulate cosmic energy. From you see the word cosmic you know its from a comic, all the rest however are true psionic abilities, shouldn't they be there?

Hmm... actually, at first I was uncertain about the merit of this edit, but now I think it was a good idea. I do, however, think that all the information he removed should be included somewhere. I recommend including it in the individual articles – that is, putting the applications of Telepathy in the Telepathy article, and so forth. That would also allow a little more trimming, as the two points listed under Telepathy could then be removed. If anyone agrees and wants to do it, the removed information can be found here. I personally would include everything from "psychokinesis" down in the Psychokinesis article, with the possible exception of the Therapeutic Uses section (I'm not quite sure what to think of that one...). —Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I could just put them all in a page devoted to Kinetic abilities, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.121.194 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something like List of psionic powers in fiction. There was one at one time – I think it was here, though it's clearly not there anymore. —Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, I'll see what I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.13.2 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely "Clairperception" falls under the first category? Since it's technically a subset of Extrasensory Perception... —Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Complaint

I have noticed you destroyed my contribution to this article Noclevername, I was just wondering why. I created a new section devoted not to game examples, but the completely different media of film and therefore thought it necessary to add it. I believe mentioning the fact that the subject matter is mentioned not only in games but elsewhere too is important, and would like to bring back my section as I believe you have dismissed it as being part of the "large chunk of fictional and game examples" whereas I was merely trying to point out it was mentioned in a different medium. My addition was referenced properly too, and so I would like an explanation! -- Abridge —Preceding comment was added at 04:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psionics/Archive_1&oldid=239575075"