Talk:Psionics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

People do not even know how Psion's draw power..

Firstly, Psionic's are NOT at all MAGIC, they draw there power from there mind, and manifest it into reality, secondly, I shall be improving this page much, using some of the d20 system is needed here. Ihsbislns (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns

The article didn't say that they were. It was comparing the variety of uses for psionics in works of fiction with the variety of uses for magic in fiction. -Internet Mage (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Appendum: Okay take this example of what you changed "sometimes with the mind and psionics existing side by side as distinct phenomena." The mind and psionics always exist side by side by definition (if psionics does). However there are works of fiction with both magic and psionics in them. -Internet Mage (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Before you try to know what you talk about, try reading more of the Psionic's in the d20 system. Ihsbislns (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns

Look, I'm not denying that I don't know what how psionics are portrayed in d20 systems except DnD 3.5. The point is the part you changed isn't talking about only d20. It isn't even describing psionic phenomena by itself. It simply compares how much psionics shows up to how much magic shows up and how they both are supernatural in their respective stories. Psionics in d20 systems is more specifically addressed here. -Internet Mage (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's very true, but please only leave in the word "magic" where its needed, and not used elsewhere in the article. Ihsbislns (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns

The d20 system is irrelevant here. This is about psionics in the general sense, not the pseudo-magical psionics of D&D. —Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User:Condalence/Sandbox/Aerokinesis

I'm working on improving Wikipedia:User:Condalence/Sandbox/Aerokinesis to become an authenic article. Anyone up for helping? --Condalence] 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think you'll be able to find enough info on Aerokinesis to make a good article. But feel free to keep trying... —Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Article needs editing.

" It is widely believed that Psionics can also be used in combat, to fight against people. Psionics is also used in shielding, which can be from physical damage, or just regular psionic damage." I don't know what to do about this, maybe remove it? Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Link Vandalsim, Persisant.

Repeated ink vandalism by random, different ip's. Will report for locking. Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, ah, what is the deal with the discussion-via-edit-summary regarding the ordering and appropriateness of certain external links? - Eldereft (cont.) 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He's trying to put in a link which just goes to a page which says "under construction." Obviously doesn't know that putting your link on wiki 1) ought to take the person somewhere 2) doesn't increase your google ranking. Else, he's just making a mistake. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

www.psilinks.net/ seems to be nothing but a place for netizens to post their thoughts about psychic phenomena. The external links guideline indicates Links to ... chat or discussion forums/groups should be avoided, as they do not provide a verifiable resource for the article. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree with Martinphi and Eldereft. The link that Scienceisyourfriend is so adamant about keeping does not belong on wikipedia per WP:EL. The psilinks.net link goes to a FORUM, which is highly discouraged and totally inappropriate with the speculative subject matter we are dealing with. Themfromspace (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I hate to make accusations, but after glancing over the contributions log of User:Scienceisyourfriend, it appears that he is a single-purpose account created to place that link on the Psionics page and make sure it stays there. His first edit was the addition of the psionics link and his user profile even reads that "the people on other websites might know me as notagh. Just so you people know I'm here, and I'm protecting those links. " A quick google search for "notagh" leads to the sites thepsiworld.net, psionicsonline.net, psionguild.org and (of course) psilinks.net. He has reverted deletions that undo the mention of these sites, although they are all POV, forum sites, sites that require/encourage users to signup/login, or a combination of the above, which doesnt sit well with WP:EL. Themfromspace (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

These sites also seem to provide articles though, at this point in time. --Neskaya _talk 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic comment redacted by user. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to the accusation that I have "bitten" User:Scienceisyourfriend. I gave him reasons (the same mentioned prior) why I reverted his edits and pointed him towards the relevant guidelines, namely WP:EL. I also notified him via his talkpage of this discussion about him, giving him room to argue his case. In my defense; when a user defends his first edit as adamantly as he is doing it creates valid suspicion that he came here with a purpose. Never did I tell the user to leave, nor did I chastise him for his edits; I just pointed out what the evidence strongly implies. Themfromspace (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that wikipedia has hope. You people do care for the truth and all, don't you.

And you, themfromspace, are correct in your accusation. However, me editing other topics will come, my background check is pretty irrevelant, and now, the website is up. It was only temporarily down, and I should have checked. However ,it's up again. Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And also, because the site, which is up, is mainly a compilation of links about this subject, some of online groups, some of actual scientific experiments and studies online, ect, which I would assume fits perfectly well to external links guideline.

Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So, do we now agree or disagree that the site link of Psi-Links belong in external links, or no? If yes, I could add it, but, if you wikipedipeople vote no, I am fine with the link not being there. I was only being so adamant was because the continued removal of the link without explanation. With an explanation, I am fine with that.

• Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)After reviewing the working link in question, I don't think it should belong in the article. The database makes no distinction between scientific studies and personal websites, which goes against Wikipedias guidelines for external links. There is no clear standard for inclusion in the links presented and as such the links can be seen as trivial and nonnotable. Many of the links are to blogs and personal websites which are not cited and verified, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you review the link again, you will see that there are several articles there. Additionally, I am worried about the constant removal of links to both the Psion Guild and PSC Online, as these seem at a deep glance to be not only forums but places where there are articles up. --Neskaya _talk 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the links as they all fail WP:EL as they are links to blogs or forums, including commercial services. One was even "under constructions". Verbal chat 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Scope

This article appears to be severely redundant with Psychokinesis. In the Psychokinesis article, PK is taken as a broad term that appears to be synonymous with this definition of psionics (note that telekinesis redirects to Psychokinesis). 'Psychokinesis' also appears to be the more popularly used term within the realm of paranormal research. It needs to be made clear what content belongs in this article, and what content belongs in the PK article. If that cannot be done, then perhaps the articles should be merged. -Verdatum (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Merging the two articles and redirecting this one (I assume, since the other word is more familiar) would clear up the redundancy. Themfromspace (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Or leave it as a disambiguator for Psychokinesis and Psionics (role-playing games) &c. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I like this idea. -Verdatum (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see the lead changed "Somtimes, especially in fiction, the word psionics is also used." And a one-paragraph section on the term, if necessary, an addition to this section. However, the argument for having this article is that 1) you can't really merge it to Psi (parapsychology) because it's all about fiction while that is a technical term, and 2) it is not just about psychokinesis, but telepathy also. This article does serve a function, which is to keep this term which covers many aspects of psi but is mainly fiction from having sections in multiple other articles- where it's really not notable. I suspect many of the sources used don't use this term. How about debating whether this is notable at all, while people are paying attention? this source doesn't mention the term. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In all the real world sourcing I did for the PK article, I never encountered the word "psionics." No one in parapsychology uses the term. It is currently a See also link in the PK article. I feel that is sufficient, although the link there might be more appropriate for the Pop Culture section of the article. 5Q5 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you 5Q5 and MartinPhi, now I'm starting to understand. I failed to notice that unlike the other people mentioned in the history, the person attributed to suggesting this term is from a fiction background, not from parapsychology. If that is the case, I suggest the tone of this article be restructured to meet with WP:NEO, and stick to discussing the usage of the term, and not the concepts it is used to represent. Doing this, and appropriately cleaning up Psionics (role-playing games) to similar standards would allow those two articles to be merged. There is also psionics (Dungeons & Dragons), but that is sensible as a stand-alone article unless someone has the urge to reduce it for reasons of WP:NOT#PLOT/WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE (at which point it would more likely merge up into an appropriate parent D&D article). But it does mean that for the time being, there should be a disambiguation page (I'll take care of that).

Concerning MartinPhi's concerns on notability, I would argue that this is indeed a notable neologism. "Psionics" the term, and not merely the concept, is invoked as a major plot device in a number of fictional universes (including RPGs), and it's implications are discussed in independent 3rd party sources.

Out of courtesy to other editors, I'll leave the existing merge proposal up for a couple days more, and barring new arguments, withdraw it then. -Verdatum (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, then. Campbell is a bit old to be strictly covered by WP:NEO, but the context in which the term is used is important. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should, or more to the point, I don't see why it should. Psionics and psychokinesis mean completely different things, and I think it might just confuse the very large group of people that use the world psionics to mean something more than just the thinks that appear in d&d and other RPG's. Just saying. It would be nice if someone could explain it to me. Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand on the claim that Psionics and psychokinesis mean completely different things? The articles suggest they are quite similar, only that "psionics" includes telepathy, while "psychokinesis" does not. -Verdatum (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the term was coined in parapsychology. It just died an early death in that field. So there is some very tenuous connection. But it's nearly entirely in fiction. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted articles now supposedly go intact (less images) by robot to the offsite Deletionpedia since Feb 2008, so nothing will ever be gone for good (except the images!). 5Q5 (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. When robots become intelligent it will be things like that which cause them to judge us unworthy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that we should really merge Psychokinesis into this article. In the suggestion that this is merged, people are forgetting that psionics seems to be a broader term than psychokinesis. Psionics also seems to include aspects of empathy and telepathy. We should not be merging a broad article into a narrow article, even if the broad article is currently incomplete enough that it seems like it is the same as the narrower article. --Neskaya _talk 17:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neskaya (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid your proposal goes strongly against WP:COMMONNAME. If WP made it a policy to merge things up into the most encompassing of terms, the entire encyclopedia would be in a single article, stuff. -Verdatum (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, point taken. However -- the PAGE Psionics should be preserved, even if MOST of it is moved over to Psychokinesis, if that makes any sense? It should happen that Psionics is something like a brief paragraph pointing to Psychokinesis, Empathy, and Telepathy maybe? --Neskaya _talk 18:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neskaya (talk • contribs)

Yes, that seems to be the general concensus at the moment...I'll remove that merge tag, it's been long enough. -Verdatum (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that I could make a suggestion which actually helped. --Neskaya _talk 18:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neskaya (talk • contribs)

Justification of adding links.

• Justification of adding link to Psionic Social Club due to the valuable amount of information within their Library of Research section. This link appears to pass WP:EL with no problem. --Neskaya _talk 17:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neskaya (talk • contribs)

  Fails WP:EL - 1, it's a social club, Fails point 10 of WP:ELNO. 2, Fails point 2 of WP:ELNO, Verbal chat 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps the link should be directly to the library? --Neskaya _talk 18:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neskaya (talk • contribs)

  Fails point 2 still. Please sign your comments. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  Argh, sorry about the not signing comments. Does not fail point 2, there is a whole section of published research. --Neskaya _talk 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  Not seeing much of a problem here. That link is fine; a valid external link. Probably a dodgy reference, but fine as an EL. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  What's your reasoning as to why it doesn't fail 2 and 10 of WP:EL? Also, if it's of published research, and isn't one sided etc, then it fails as it contains material that could be provided in the article. Verbal chat 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  Well, it's not a social networking site, so it passes 10; it has reliable publications, not simple trivia, so it passes 2. Remember that blogs are discouraged, yet some reliable news sites such as AOL have them below articles. This isn't a simple social networking site. In my view it's perfectly valid. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  It is both of those things, and also a forum, an unreliable source, plus more. It isn't a good link, and we shouldn't encourage people to go there. My interpretation is that it fails WP:EL on several counts. Verbal chat 19:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  It is not a social networking site, is a forum. There is a difference. Additionally, from the way things are worded on the site, the forum is not the main purpose of the site. This site appears to be the MOST valid of the various sites that had been linked before. It should stay. Some resources for people to go look and make their own judgments on are far better than none. --Neskaya _talk 20:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neskaya (talk • contribs)

  Why s it called a social club? Forums still fail, and this link fails. Please sign your edits. Verbal chat 20:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  I don't own it and therefore can't answer that. It is not primarily a forum, nor is the link specifically to the forum section. And SineBot hates me, there's obviously a signature there that was there before SineBot put the unsigned comment thing. --Neskaya _talk 20:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  You need to sign properly with four tildes, your wiktionary sig is no good. Also, it fails for the other reasons I mentioned. Verbal chat 20:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  You're interpreting WP:EL incredibly strictly. I have to agree with PeterSymonds on this one. And I fixed the signature, however I don't use the talk page on this project. But that's a discussion for another place, not here. --Neskaya _talk 20:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

←I'll make it more basic: does it "add value"? I think the answer is "No". Verbal chat 00:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to See also section

I removed paranormal and astral projection and added

• Psi (parapsychology)
• Parapsychology
• Psychic
• List of psychic abilities

I later removed List of psychic abilities and added extrasensory perception and psychokinesis and I think at one time I also added OOBE but someone else took these out and added list of psychic abilities back. Sorry I made these changes without discussing them first in this discussion page.

Who took out Psionic abilities may be categorized into three types:?

Community links

Where did they go? Who deleted them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constructman (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the stuff Fgopl should be put back on, or at least a more professional version of it. I checked the history; it didn't look that great but it was more informative than the current page. --Constructman (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2