Talk:Psychic/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Assessment comments

"Psychic senses" section could use some work, maybe with links, and probably changing the last paragraph to reflect "five normal senses", thus eliminating repetition. "Seventh sense" being claricognizance needs to be clarified, as no "sixth" is named. "Fiction" section could be longer. A separate "References" section listing the references alphabetically would be useful as well. John Carter 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

Note:copied from a user page discussion

I don't recall this as being part of the ArbCom ruling. It looks like it came from [1], but I don't believe the arbitrator actually said to use that specific wording; and the statement from the arbitrator: "I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter," leaves me with the understanding that the original wording was fine and didn't need to be changed at all...much less being "literally per the ArbCom". Looks like the editor who added it is willing to edit war over it, so I thought I'd get another opinion on it...and you seem like the perfect choice..;) – Dreadstar † 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

<minor edit> I would rather see a consensus discussion take place on the Talk:Psychic page than to just revert the disputed edit again - I think it might just lead to edit warring, which is one of the basic things ArbCom was really addressing with its rulings. If we are interpreting the edit correctly as a provocative or WP:POINT edit, then it's unfortunate that Uninvited Co's hope seems to have been missed: "I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)". – Dreadstar † 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to discuss the article on its talk page, in full view of other editors? Antelan ^talk 22:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, per request by User:Antelan. – Dreadstar † 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't want to move it myself in case there would be an objection. Antelan ^talk 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Point one

Antelan, please explain why you are making non-consensus edits and edit warring to keep them in. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Equally, you "edit-warred", to use your term, to take my edit out. Pot, kettle, black. I don't think a discussion introduced in the way you've introduced it is going to go anywhere productive, frankly. Antelan ^talk 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently or not apparently

Apparently is apparently not a word we have to use and is more a wording choice. We can get a straw poll going or just comment. I don't personally see anything wrong with using "apparently", but I think once is sufficient to do any framing of the topic and it doesn't have to be repeated multiple times. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, "Apparently" is one of the types of words which the ArbCom ruled we don't need to use any more. We follow the ArbCom decision, not what a single Arbitrator said- even if by some stretch of the immagination he meant we needed to change it when he said there was nothing wrong with the current article. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote the relevant part so we can start from there? I really don't want to read through all of that again : ). Quick search of WP:WTA doesn't turn up the word unless I missed it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

and

The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose.

In this case, the article is framed with paranormal and ESP. The whole conglomerate of articles frame each other. Controversy is included in the psychic article, and in its lead.

But we first should return to the consensus version, then discuss this on the talk page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to returning to the previous version until it's resolved? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DO you have a link tot he previosu version of this atticle.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs) (20:39, 5 August 2007

I believe this is the proposed previous version to be reverted to. I have no objections Nealparr. I think since the current version is disputed, it should be reverted until consensus can be reached on it. – Dreadstar † 00:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi disputes the current version, and I am uncomfortable with the previous version. I would prefer that the decision to revert or not revert for the time being be based on the analysis of people other than the two of us. Antelan ^talk 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks i have no obections to that version either. it looks the same as the other one,re ally? Smith Jones 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure but what Smith Jones means the ArbCom decision, which is here. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get too indepth on this article right now because technically I'm on Wikibreak and just responding to articles I am actually involved in. But since outside opinion was asked for, I thought I'd drop my thoughts before going back to my other stuff. Personally, I don't think the current wording is worded well. Line by line:

• A psychic is a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces. I think this is fine.
• The term denotes apparently paranormal extra-sensory abilities or phenomena that may or may not exist. May not exist is unnecessary because it's framed as "paranormal", which is phenomena that may or may not exist. "Apparently" isn't needed either because that was already said in the first line. Paranormal phenomena may or may not exist, so currently this line reads as "apparently phenomena that may or may not exist [...] phenomena that may or may not exist". <- That's not a typo.
• They are said to be inexplicable by known natural laws, transcending the confines of our current understanding of what a human being is capable of. This line isn't that bad, but again it's redundant. The definition of "paranormal" is the part before the comma, so again it's repeating itself.

Not getting into this article right now, but offering the above in case it's helpful. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The part about being sensitive to "non-physical forces" leaves begs the question of what a physical force is. Since all known forces are "fields," well, it ain't sayin' nothin. The original summary was much better. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't like the previous version either. I don't like the entire article, honestly : ) That's why I'm not getting involved. I thought I might but after reading through it thought, why bother? It's currently way too much about psychical research. Psychic (noun and adjective) is WP:WEIGHT more about a pop culture phenomenon related to New Age than stuffy old psychical research. Millions of people are involved in the culture behind Sylvia Browne books and James Van Praagh television shows versus the couple of hundred people interested in parapsychology. That's the approach I would take, the pop culture approach, and stuff the parapsychology down into a small section near the bottom. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd take the almost opposite view, that the research is important and should be prioritised in the article, and the popular beliefs coming second. Hopefully a consensus on this will emerge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 August 2007

I agree that pop culture should come first, because it is more notable culturally. Nealparr, I was under the impression you basically wrote the whole article. But that aside, as far as the article, we need a definition that doesn't weasel or use WTAs or words/ways of phrasing like what the ArbCom ruled against. And we need skepticism displayed to round out the concept of "psychic." –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I had a relatively short psychical research section and was always planning to develop the pop culture part as a higher prominence. Just never got around it : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a consensus for reverting back to the previous version until the proposed changes have been discussed and consensus is reached on any new wording. Plus, the redundant aspects of the lead need to be addressed as soon as possible. I'll revert now and we can move forward in discussing the changes. Hopefully this will be ok with everyone involved. Let me know if any of you disagree. I'm happy to see everyone working together towards an agreed upon version! – Dreadstar † 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if the weasel tag is ok, or if there is a more appropriate one. I merely reverted back to the version that existed before this issue was raised. – Dreadstar † 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Psychic

If we're going to refer to people like Sylvia Browne or John Edward as "Psychics" then this article must reflect the definition of "Psychic" as someone who "claims" to have paranormal abilities but not someone who necessarily has them. The Arbitration committee voted unanimously for the following statement: ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." This means that if a psychic "may not" have psychic abilities an the use of the term does not imply that such abilities actually exist, we need to clarify that in this article. That means that this article needs to define "Psychic" as someone who "claims to have" psychic abilities and not someone who necessarily has them. The criticism section doesn't negate the fact that if this article defines "psychic" as someone with psychic abilities, then Wikipedia would be affirming that people like Sylvia Browne or John Edward actually have psychic powers. This would all be acceptable per WP:WTA.

Also, Concerning the term "apparently". This term is very ambiguous. If someone "apparently" has psychic powers, then who is it apparent to? It isn't apparent to me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources such as the New York Times might insult its readers by explaining what they mean when they use the term psychic - for example, describing Jeane Dixon as a "self-described psychic" - but are we going to stoop to the level of the New York Times? Antelan ^talk 01:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee made the decision to prevent us from calling self described psychics...Self described psychics. If we're stuck with this limitation then we need to clarify what the term "psychic" means in this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't put things better than Fred Bauder:

A "psychic", like a "saint", or the "nobility", is a social construct. Like a saint, who may not be good, or a member of the nobility who may not display discernible noble characteristics or behavior, a psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist. Thus referring to someone who holds themselves out as a psychic or who performs as a psychic or is recognized by others as a psychic does not necessarily imply that any such capability exists, any more than a reference to the goose that lays golden eggs implies the ability of any goose to lay golden eggs. On the other hand, obviously a person (or departed spirit) could be very good and have the ability to respond to prayer, or have noble characteristics or psychic abilities, yet lack social recognition, or self-identification as such, assuming such abilities exist.

What this means is that although the definition of a word like psychic is "someone with powers," referring to someone as a "psychic" does not actually indicate that those powers exist. We already explain this fully in the article. We have framed this article with words like paranormal and ESP. We have specifically said in the lead:

The existence of real psychic abilities is very controversial, and skeptics say that the apparent instances of psychic phenomena, and the studies conducted by parapsychologists are better explained by self-delusion, fraud, or error.

We have included a Criticism section.

I'm sorry some people don't like the fact that the ArbCom decided that framing an article and including skepticism is enough to tell the reader that the powers may not exist. However, we are at the point now where people will either have to abide by the ArbCom or choose to attempt to subvert it. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=149442964&oldid=149442424 Antelan ^talk 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you put that link? If you are saying that Bauder is not a god, I'm not saying he is. Rather, he put the intent of the ArbCom better than I've been able to. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin, You keep quoting people who say that "Psychic" doesn't necessarily mean someone with psychic powers, yet here you say that " the proper way to define "psychic" is as someone who HAS powers". So which is it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've explained it, Fred Bauder explained it, the ArbCom explains it. I don't think there's more I can say. If you quote me out of context, I'm sure you can come up with proof I'm the Devil incarnate. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Building consensus requires us to be able to work towards a unified vision for the article. I raised the concern in the RfC that the meaning encapsulated in the term "psychic" is not globally agreed upon; different people are operating under different definitions. You have asserted multiple, conflicting meanings of "psychic", and have been invoking the ArbCom in lieu of clarifying your position. We can cut through all of this if you will be straightforward about a self-consistent definition that you are comfortable with. It doesn't have to be a definition that I agree with; we just need some clue as to where you stand so we can find some common ground here. Antelan ^talk 04:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin, What you're saying and what the Arbcom has said are two totally different things. The arbitration committee has said that "A psychic may not have psychic abilities" and this needs to be made clear in the first or second sentence of this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made myself as clear as I can. You'll just have to accept what the ArbCom actually says- in context and as a whole. There is nothing wrong with the current lead. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a tip: Wikipedia isn't Wiktionary. Psychic is a pretty common term and doesn't require an indepth technical definition and can skirit a definition altogether. For example, instead of "Psychic is...", you can use "The term psychic relates to the belief in supernatural forces, events, or powers." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If this one word, psychic, is going to adequately frame an entire article to the exclusion of any qualifiers indicating which of the several definitions of psychic we are using, it had better be crystal clear to us and to our readers what we mean when we use this word. I'm absolutely blown away that people are arguing in favor of vagueness instead of clarity - and to what end? Antelan ^talk 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Compliance with the parameters of Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it's the entire article here that does the framing. Example "parapsychological phenomena" isn't framed by the limited definition of parapsychology, it's framed by the whole controversy. Just a tip. I'm not arguing for any particular wording. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a very important point: it's the entire article which does the framing, and also the entire article which gives the full feel for the definition of psychic. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate.

So to state it the way I did "A psychic is someone who has psychic powers, but those powers may not really exist," is not quite accurate. Rather, the word psychic conveys many meanings. The two most important to skeptics and believers, however, are the two I stated. Both of those meanings are contained in the word psychic, and both are reflected in the current Psychic lead, which is well-framed per the ArbCom. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

New definition case

I'm attempting to make a case for the fact that the term "psychic", as it is being used commonly, and under the heading of the picture/info of Edgar Cayce (RHS), is inaccurate. There is no definition for the term as being a noun - the closest being, "medium". I believe it to be untrue for Wikipedia to use such a sensitive and mysterious concept as those things that are 'psyhic', in an erroneous way. I've tried to include the dictionary.com (source) definition of the word in editing the page, only to have it removed. However, any placement would be sufficient - as long as it is there. No rule applies to everything... including this one. User:Classicalloy 06:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)classicalloy

Hi classicalloy. Try #6 from dictionary.com [2]. It is listed as a noun. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop bickering

PEOPLE PLEASE STOP BIVCKERING ITS NOT SOLVING ANYTHING!!!!! Smith Jones 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good man. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bicker-to engage in petulant or peevish argument. You're saying that my argument is petulant or peevish? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

NO!!!! SOMEONE MOVED MY 'STOP BICKERING' SECTION DOWN FOR SOME REEASON. Smith Jones 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Smith Jones 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't intended to annoy you, just formatting. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm not made you just upset because it was not made until befofe wikidudemen and entered the debate. i was talking about the bickering that came b efore that but as usual everyone assmes the worst. Smith Jones 17

10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you think it was aimed at you? I thought it was aimed at the argument. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm part of the argument and am making arguments. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kay. Whatever –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Recommended definition

"Supernatural forces, events, or powers". It's verifiable to a source[3], and doesn't require explanation that it doesn't exist. "Supernatural" itself is the qualifier. Supernatural doesn't invoke science in any way shape or form. Alternates that use "supernatural" as the qualifier (from other sources) likewise don't need a "may not exist statement" in the definition and don't invoke science. Call it a day. For people who are psychic, I don't believe the arbitration said anything about "said to" being off limits in terms of specific people's claimed abilities. Sylvia Browne is a psychic (job title). Sylvia Browne is said to have the ability to see into the future (claimed ability). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That which is supernatural by definition does not exist. This is completely unacceptable. Paranormal is fine, and serves the same purpose. Re the rest of it, if we speak of a specific person's powers, then we do qualify. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true, and it was a term mentioned in the arbitration. God is supernatural. Go tell all the people who believe in God that by definition of supernatural God is non-existent. Supernatural means "beyond natural", which is exactly what the current wording says, but the current wording has problems. Paranormal means "not explainable by science". There's absolutely no reason to invoke science in the intro. Here's my thoughtfully worded intro suggestion which I have sources for.

---

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. In popular usage the term describes supernatural forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these supernatural forces.

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population believe in extra-sensory perception. Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs.

---

This definition is fully compatible with the arbitration ruling and general principles of Wikipedia and is verifiable through sources. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't resist a Bela Lugosi quote:

Some Guy: "Sounds like a lot of supernatural bologna to me."

Bella Lugosi: "Supernatural, perhaps. Bologna, perhaps not."

Seriously, supernatural does not mean non-existent, and the definition solves problems.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you have written the Paranormal article and not know the definition of paranormal? Paranormal means "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." It there is a huge difference between the supernatural and the paranormal.

Supernatural means stuff like:

1.supernatural - not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings" –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible" is easily reduced to "not explainable". "By science" is shorthand for "current scientific assumptions". The suggestion is based on sources and just a suggestion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, this is right. But "people sensitive to or able to use these supernatural forces" can be reduced to "the term psychic denotes a person who is sensitive ot or able to use forces which in actuality don't exist." –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a philosophical argument, Martinphi, and not supernatural's definition. Your POV in this instance is naturalism, which holds that the "natural world" has complete dominion on existential statements, that only things in the natural world exist, when strictly speaking there's absolutely no way to know if that is true or not. Hence it is not the definition of supernatural, that the thing does not exist, only that it is beyond the natural world. Asserting that "supernatural" "does not exist" is biasing towards "naturalism". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the supernatural can exist, the definition of natural is something like "the phenomena of the physical world," and we have no business stating that psychic things are not of the so-called physical world. What have you got against "paranormal?" If we use that word, we aren't making any statement about whether it is natural or supernatural, only that it seems not to accord with current science, for whatever reason. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Against paranormal? Nothing. That can be used to. Just offering suggestions as compromises. I'm not advocating any particular wording, just offering suggestions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people sensitive to or able to use these forces.

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population believe in extra-sensory perception. Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs.

---

How about that? –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1. We don't need to mention the psychological use of the term "psychic" since it's elaborated on in the psyche article. This article deals with the paranormal powers. This article deals exclusively with the paranormal and supernatural aspects of "mental powers" and shouldn't begin with talking about the history of the term not relating to paranormal phenomena. 2. If we're going to define "Psychic" as someone who definitely has psychic powers then we can't call people like Sylvia Browne a "psychic" since their purported powers aren't proven to exist. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

2. has already been decided by the ArbCom, and thoroughly hashed over. Your POV has not garnered support. I don't know if you have monitored this discussion, which ended thus.

See if you like this intro better:

---

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. The term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities that seem to be inexplicable by known natural laws, such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people apparently sensitive to or able to use these forces.

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population believe in extra-sensory perception.

The existence of real psychic abilities is very controversial, and skeptics say that the apparent instances of psychic phenomena, and the studies conducted by parapsychologists are better explained by self-delusion and magical thinking, fraud, or error. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to keep referencing the Arbitration committee decision then you need to probably read what they said. They said and I quote ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist."[[4]]

If a psychic may NOT have psychic abilities then your definition as "Psychic", all of your definitions of psychic, are incorrect per the Arbcom decision. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"The existence of real psychic abilities is very controversial, and skeptics say that the apparent instances of psychic phenomena, and the studies conducted by parapsychologists are better explained by self-delusion and magical thinking, fraud, or error. "

You've been pushing and pushing this POV. You've just got to accept now that the Arbitrators don't look at only one sentence to see if an article is NPOV, but, at the very least, the entire lead. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It'd be hypocritical of me not to point out a goose/gander flaw in the "inexplicable by known natural laws" wording. The principle of the arbitration ruling was that qualifiers often don't add anything new. If we're going to say that "may or may not exist" doesn't need a qualifier because it's obvious, they why qualifiers like "known" laws, which implies that some unknown natural law is at play? Shouldn't it just read "inexplicable by natural law"? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin, Firstly, I would appreciate it if you would stop saying I am "pushing a POV". This isn't assuming good faith. Secondly, We're talking about the definition of the word "psychic" here. If you're going to go with the Arbcom definition then you need to be consistent with that and stop posting definitions up that conflict with the Arbcom definition. The Arbcom has said clearly and I've linked it, "A psychic may not have psychic abilities". What's the problem here? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any problem, according the Arbitrators. You have a problem. The Arbitrators don't look at only one sentence to see if an article is NPOV, but, at the very least, the entire lead. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

nobody has a problem let's try tow ork together tan abid by the wikipedia arbcobm descision. I have been reading it for the past several months now and acording to some of their decisions it is up to the ditors to deside who wll cover the exact nature of the topic. it would be better if we could come to a compromise instead of edit warring over the talk apge of notghing. Smith Jones 02:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem Martni? Now you're really not assuming good faith! You say that the "Arbitrators don't look at only one sentence to see if an article is NPOV, but, at the very least, the entire lead."? What does this even mean and how does it have any relation to the definition of "Psychic"? The Entire lead should be NPOV and not just one sentence? I agree. The lead should reflect what the arbitrators have said and should define "Psychics" as people who don't necessarily have supernatural powers. This is what the arbitration committee has said. Allow me to quote them again:

""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist."[[5]]

That is what they said. Nothing difficult about it. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, the term "psychic" can be used to describe someone like Sylvia Browne even if she doesn't have any "psychic abilities" and since that is the case, This article, the Psychic article, must reflect the definition as elaborated by the ArbCom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

" The lead should reflect what the arbitrators have said and should define "Psychics" as people who don't necessarily have supernatural powers. " You're right. And that's exactly what the current lead does. See also this. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

From reading the lead, I don't see it that way. Firstly, Nowhere does it clearly state that people who are called "psychics" don't necessarily have psychic powers. Secondly, The lead has far too many weasel words. The sentence "People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics"." is very ambiguous. "People who are thought to have these abilities"? Who thinks they have those abilities? I don't. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, The "Definition" in the right side box clearly says "An ability or phenomona[sic] said to originate from the brain, but to transcend its confines. Primarily in relation to Psi". This is an absolute statement asserting that "Psychics" have ability or phenomena which transcend the confines of the brain but are said to originate from it. This definition is also inaccurate. Many natural human abilities originate from the brain and transcend the confines of it. My ability to throw an object originates form the brain, yet the effects of the object thrown transcend the confines of the brain itself. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to the lead, not the box or the purported weasels for now. We can deal with them later. Here is where the lead clearly states that people who are called "psychics" don't necessarily have psychic powers:

"Psychic is a term relating to or denoting paranormal extra-sensory abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by known natural laws, since they transcend the confines of our current understanding of what a human being is capable of [that was what the ArbCom called framing]...The existence of real psychic abilities is very controversial, and skeptics say that the apparent instances of psychic phenomena, and the studies conducted by parapsychologists are better explained by self-delusion, fraud, or error." –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, What you just quoted says absolutely nothing about people called "Psychics" not necessarily having psychic powers. The part that would say that you left out. The second sentence, which you left out, says:

"People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics"."

This doesn't clarify that the people called psychics don't necessarily have such powers. It uses weasel terms such as "thought to have", but nowhere does it clarify that "those called psychics do not necessarily have psychic powers".

Secondly, The very first sentence of the article and the lead says that:

"Psychic is a term relating to or denoting paranormal extra-sensory abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by known natural laws, since they transcend the confines of our current understanding of what a human being is capable of."

This definition is affirming that anyone called a "Psychic" must have paranormal extra-sensory abilities which are inexplicable by known natural laws. This is POV and goes against what the ArbCom has said. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains, however, that you are wrong. See explanations above, and on other pages linked. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Another approach

Is there another way to explain in a neutral way the frauds, while still providing a technical definition, and avoiding qualifiers and words to avoid? For example:

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics. The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics".

That pretty much covers everyone in a neutral way.

I would also add my second line into the intro:

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population had a belief in extra-sensory perception. Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs.

This line qualifies it as a popular belief, which sets the tone for the (not written yet) pop culture examination.

To round it out, I would also add a modification to the third line:

The existence of real psychic abilities is controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community.

Better wording. The current third line wording mentions "studies ... explained ... by self-delusion, fraud, or error". That would be "evidence" explained, not "studies" explained. Since no evidence is presented (or should be) in the intro, the above is a better summation of a research section.

Summation: The above, taken together, makes for a well-worded intro to a controversial topic. It also avoids qualifiers and words to avoid. Each part contains the alternate view in a non-argumentive way. I really recommend this version. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Very nice, Nealparr. How 'bout this modification- it gives a fuller explanation, and frames it better:

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. The term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities that seem to be inexplicable by known natural laws, such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people apparently sensitive to or able to use these forces. The term psychic also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions, but do not have paranormal abilities.

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population believe in extra-sensory perception.

The existence of real psychic abilities is controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You added: "seem to be inexplicable by known natural laws" and removed "psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs", correct? Arbitration suggested paranormal is adequate framing, so the natural law stuff is not needed. "seem" is a qualifier. We don't need any of that, and it has already been disputed, so why add it? The psychologist explanation for the beliefs is the counter-view to the "big numbers" stats. It's popular, but that just may be because magical thinking is popular. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I replaced " As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics."

with

The term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities that seem to be inexplicable by known natural laws, such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people apparently sensitive to or able to use these forces.

The "seems" is sourced right to many definitions of psychic- and to the word paranormal. Could cut it to:

The term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people apparently sensitive to or able to use these forces.

We don't need to know "As an adjective," but specific instances are useful. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The "known natural law" definitely needs to be dumped. That is only one interpretation of "paranormal". As the arbitration suggested, paranormal is sufficient to frame a matter because the entire topic as a whole does the framing, not just the technical definition. In the "whole-framing", the alternate view is that these things can be can be explained by natural law (delusion and so forth). Just call it paranormal and be done with it. That's actually been your argument throughout : ) Goose/gander. "Psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche" is another notable usage. It's not all paranormal. Seems and apparently are weasel words and not needed because of the framing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. Ok, try this:

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. The term is popularly used to describe paranormal forces, influences, or abilities such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people who are sensitive to or able to use these forces. Psychic also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions, but do not have paranormal abilities.

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population believe in extra-sensory perception.

The existence of real psychic abilities is controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Lead

Comments on Neal's version, followed by general observations on everything.

1. Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. --- The Greek root word derivation and its partial reference to the human mind are not primary essential details. The article should get right to what the word means.

2. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics. --- As WDM, Antelan, and others point out, if we're going to define "Psychic" as someone who definitely has psychic powers then we can't call the people currently listed as psychics "psychics", since their purported powers aren't proven to exist. A qualifier is sorely needed.

3 The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics". --- Positioned as it does, this seems to be addressing some perceived need to draw a distinction between "real" psychic powers and "false" psychic powers. It makes an assumption (people "without paranormal abilities") that there are genuine abilities to compare with false ones.

4 Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. --- I think there could be a more neutral and less "promotional" way of describing the results suggested by one poll.

5 A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population had a belief in extra-sensory perception. ---- Might be justified if the lead took a pop culture slant. But as it is, it feels like a cherry-picked bit of data lifted out of a greater context.

6. Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs. --- This fails to connect with your proposed lead, which defines psychic as extraordinary powers, rather than a "belief". Also there are major WEIGHT issues. One of the big problems with Martin's version is that it defines the term psychic as extraordinary powers and then later mentions that there are some doubters and controversy. In other words, it states a fact, and then says that the fact is controversial. Maybe that is the way proponents frame the issue among themselves, but it is not appropriate on WP. This fundamentally errant construct definitely needs to be corrected rather than propagated using different words.

7. The existence of real psychic abilities is controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. -- Reference to "real" psychic abilities assumes there are "genuine" psychic abilities. Also I wonder if failure to gain any, rather than wide acceptance, isn't more the case.

8. The sidebar of this article ("Paranormal Terminology") has some major problems, too. The credulous "definition" of Psychic notwithstanding, I take exception to: Signature: The manifestations of knowledge, abilities or phenomena derived from the brain, but outside of its normal scope. Signature? As in a "How To Recognize It" guide for spotting psychic ability? Not appropriate.

9. Use of the word "apparently" -- one of those words in English with a widespread popular conversational usage different from it's actual definition. A majority of people use "apparently" to mean roughly, "confirmed by seeing" e.g. "Bill and Donna apparently broke up" or "We're apparently out of gas". It strikes me as the most misleading of any qualifier to use in such a controversial Wikipedia article as "Psychic", as it could be so easily taken to mean something different than what's intended. I suppose one could Wikilawyer that how people mis-use a word is not our problem, but I believe that no editor who subscribes to NPOV would want to deliberately exploit a possible confusion in any form, so I suggest "said to be" and such variants as preferred alternatives to "apparent".

10. Arbitrators have said ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist, and a psychic may not have psychic abilities. If this is true, it must be sourceable, and if it's sourceable, we can avoid all confusion by stating this in the lead -- i.e. the very specific conditions of the definition that *Wikipedia* is using for the word "psychic". I can see no good reason to keep readers of the article in the dark about this.

11. In the External Links: *Abella Arthur — Videos about psychic & paranormal activity from the perspective of a professional psychic Youtube psychics? I don't think this is an approprate WP:EL.

--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sectionizing it below. I restored it above, only as a reference to what I originally posted, as the attributions below can get confusing. - LuckyLouie 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of Psychic

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. --- The Greek root word derivation and its partial reference to the human mind are not primary essential details. The article should get right to what the word means. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In part, the word is used to refer to the human mind or psyche. Examples, "psychic turmoil", "psychic debt" (guilt trip). It's not all paranormal. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dumped the whole derived part to the bottom. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Qualifier needed

In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics. --- As WDM, Antelan, and others point out, if we're going to define "Psychic" as someone who definitely has psychic powers then we can't call the people currently listed as psychics "psychics", since their purported powers aren't proven to exist. A qualifier is sorely needed. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A qualifier is one option. Another option is to spell it out. That's what the very next line does. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We have spelled this out. Note that the current version is just fine per the ArbCom in the opinion of one Arbitrator. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, after re-reading it, a soft qualifier is actually in this line. "In popular usage". The difference (and why it's compatible with any arbitration suggestion, is that we're referring only to the usage of the term rather than making statements about the existence of paranormal phenomena. This line, if applied to Sylvia Browne, would read "Sylvia Browne is popularly described as one with psychic powers". Rather than "Sylvia Browne has psychic powers." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See #Your qualifier (please read)

Asssumption of validity

The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics". --- Positioned as it does, this seems to be addressing some perceived need to draw a distinction between "real" psychic powers and "false" psychic powers. It makes an assumption (people "without paranormal abilities") that there are genuine abilities to compare with false ones. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a distinction. There's real, and there's illusion, and the real may not exist. This is all covered in the intro. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is also framed, per ArbCom. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Belief poll

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. --- I think there could be a more neutral and less "promotional" way of describing the results suggested by one poll. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to "common", less promotional. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gallup survey

A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population had a belief in extra-sensory perception. ---- Might be justified if the lead took a pop culture slant. But as it is, it feels like a cherry-picked bit of data lifted out of a greater context. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This moves into the pop culture weight. Not every idea can be wrapped up in one sentence and it takes several sentences to move into it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what leads are. And the article should be more pop-culture. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention that the Gallup poll isn't cherry picked. It's the more reliable out of all of them and is one they do every couple of years to gauge changes. The one before that was in 2000, or 2001 I think. The source is Skeptical Inquirer. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychologist framing

Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs. --- This fails to connect with your proposed lead, which defines psychic as extraordinary powers, rather than a "belief". Also there are major WEIGHT issues. One of the big problems with Martin's version is that it defines the term psychic as extraordinary powers and then later mentions that there are some doubters and controversy. In other words, it states a fact, and then says that the fact is controversial. Maybe that is the way proponents frame the issue among themselves, but it is not appropriate on WP. This fundamentally errant construct definitely needs to be corrected rather than propagated using different words. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, not every idea can be wrapped up in one sentence. You have to set the technical definition before you can illustrate the approach the article will be taking. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a version. However, the Arbitrators see the article/lead as a whole, not as one particular sentence. We can have non-NPOV sentences in an NPOV lead. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Asssumpition of validity II

The existence of real psychic abilities is controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. -- Reference to "real" psychic abilities assumes there are "genuine" psychic abilities. Also I wonder if failure to gain any, rather than wide acceptance, isn't more the case. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does assume "a controversial possibility". On the second part, are you suggesting it should read "evidence for paranormal has failed to gain wide acceptance"? Because I'm fine with that. It's not true that it hasn't gained "any". The parapsychology article elaborates on that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy is indeed assumed. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated it here [6]. Removed the "real" part and framed it as a scientific discussion, because that's what the following lines were about. Pop culture's ideas of its "realness" are largely subjective. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Asssumption of validity sidebar

The sidebar of this article ("Paranormal Terminology") has some major problems, too. The credulous "definition" of Psychic notwithstanding, I take exception to: Signature: The manifestations of knowledge, abilities or phenomena derived from the brain, but outside of its normal scope. Signature? As in a "How To Recognize It" guide for spotting psychic ability? Not appropriate. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I updated that recently. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The "sidebar" is actually a terminology box, not a taxonomy box. It exists purely to frame and define the subject matter in a particular context. As for what is and isn't appropriate, I personally consider it appropriate for a terminology box to clearly define the terminology. The current box doesn't include a definition, which is silly. It tells you where the word comes from but not what it means. - perfectblue 13:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with the sidebar is that it's freakishly huge, and redundant. All the information in it is already in the article so it's hard to justify taking up so much page real estate saying the same thing all over again. I'd actually like to see it dropped in favor of a simple picture. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of 'apparently'

Use of the word "apparently" -- one of those words in English with a widespread popular conversational usage different from it's actual definition. A majority of people use "apparently" to mean roughly, "confirmed by seeing" e.g. "Bill and Donna apparently broke up" or "We're apparently out of gas". It strikes me as the most misleading of any qualifier to use in such a controversial Wikipedia article as "Psychic", as it could be so easily taken to mean something different than what's intended. I suppose one could Wikilawyer that how people mis-use a word is not our problem, but I believe that no editor who subscribes to NPOV would want to deliberately exploit a possible confusion in any form, so I suggest "said to be" and such variants as preferred alternatives to "apparent". --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My intro doesn't use the word. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, the new intro doesn't use it. And, the whole point of psychic phenomena is that they are apparent- else no one would believe in them. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural artifact statement

Arbitrators have said ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist, and a psychic may not have psychic abilities. If this is true, it must be sourceable, and if it's sourceable, we can avoid all confusion by stating this in the lead -- i.e. the very specific conditions of the definition that *Wikipedia* is using for the word "psychic". I can see no good reason to keep readers of the article in the dark about this. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what the new lead does. The new one says "Psychic also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions, but do not have paranormal abilities." –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can provide sources for my lead and will bother with the time doing it if this is the only objection. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

External link

In the External Links: *Abella Arthur — Videos about psychic & paranormal activity from the perspective of a professional psychic Youtube psychics? I don't think this is an approprate WP:EL. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would dump most external links that aren't authoritative. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

::Woah, really long. How should I address it? Divide it into sections? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Misc

Section away. Restored my OP at the top for reference. Sorry for the giant post, but I am busy and don't have time for serial discussion/negotiation. Take this me "registering my concerns" rather than a challenge to a debate ;-) I'll get back to this when I can. Thanks, Neal. - LuckyLouie 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, thank you for the feedback. I too don't want to get into all the discussions : ) I just thought the intro proposal might address some of the concerns that editors have raised. Good to have you commenting. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your qualifier (please read)

Many editors have requested a qualifier in the definition that states that the phenomena may or may not be real.

My proposed wording:

In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics.

Your qualifier: "In popular usage"

Why: Because this frames the controversial technical definition in a way that makes no existential statements whatsoever. It is its "popular usage". Is this acceptible to arbitration rulings? It has nothing to do with arbitration rulings, because it doesn't in fact make an existential statement. It only makes a statement about the usage of the term, not whether the phenomena exists or not. Is it an acceptible qualifier in general? Yes, it is exactly the same as "as a noun..." "as an adjective...".

Summary: Editors who don't want psychic phenomena defined as a "real" thing can rest easy with this statement, because it only makes a statement on usage. Editors who don't want psychic phenomena defined as "unreal" can rest easy for the same reason. Editors who only want a working technical definition can rest easy because it provides that in a non-controversial way.

Ta da, an acceptible qualification and framing that doesn't even require compromise as it's a win-win all around. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No. "In popular usage" doesn't take away from the fact that if "in popular usage" psychic means someone with powers and "in popular usage" Sylvia Browne is a psychic thus Sylvia Browne has powers. This is still asserting that the people who are labeled psychics have said powers. The only way to avoid this is to define "Psychic" as someone who may or may not have such powers, clearly saying that a "psychic is someone who contends to have psychic powers but does not necessarily have such powers." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are conclusions not supported by the several definitions included in my suggested intro. This definition is one definition of several (much like dictionary entries for other words with multiple meanings). There's several meanings in the full intro suggestion. This one, the contested one, is qualified by "popular usage". It does not assert that people who are labeled psychic has powers. It asserts that a popular usage is the contention that psychics have powers, just like your wording above. This is the most popular usage, one even used by Randi. The view that they don't have powers is covered by the other definition, also in my suggested intro on the very next line (not obscured), that they are charlatans. The entire paragraph needs to be taken as a whole, again, like dictionary entries for words that have multiple meanings. In those entries, each meaning is spelled out separately. The entire paragraph is the full definition, not one sentence. The only real difference between yours and mine is a period. The several meanings are:

As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics. The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics".

Editors will need to comprise and allow all three usages into the intro 1) uncontroversial mental (ex. "psychic turmoil") 2) the popular usage or technical definition (used in dictionaries, other encyclopedias, and even Randi's encyclopedia), and 3) mentalists and charlatans who have no power whatsoever. It's throwing a bone to qualify the second as a "popular usage", a qualifier not technically necessary. Again, this is a win-win and shouldn't require compromise. No one needs to walk away feeling they lost something. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other notes:

• "Usage" - denotes "said to", "allege", or "contends", and many other similar phrases. It does not refer to a hard factual statement, such as "Psychic is..." or "Psychic refers to...". "Usage" implies a claim versus a simple fact. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this is about as good as it gets. If editor's aren't willing to bend, and are holding fast to their various views, it's not the environment that I'm comfortable working in and I'll go back to my other work. I personally don't mind if the neutrality tag stays up there. Maybe I'll chip in on the other sections. Is it better than what is currently there, good enough to put in leaving the neutrality tag in place? We can always come back to it later. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Said to be?

I forget, would anyone have a problem with "people said to be sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics"? Said to be isn't in the words to avoid. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still a weasel word since it's ambiguous. It doesn't mention who is doing the "saying". Said to be by whom? "People"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"said by believers" ? Ties into the second paragraph that way and reads nice. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is flawed:

"In popular usage the term psychic describes paranormal forces and influences, or abilities such as psychokinesis and extra-sensory perception, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — "psychics"."

The dash serves no purpose there. In replace of the dash there needs to be something connecting the word "psychic" with the previous sentence, such as "are called". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't look good, but I can't find a way to replace it easily. This is the best I can come up with, but I don't like it:

Psychic (sī'kĭk) refers in part to the human mind or psyche (ex. "psychic turmoil"). The word is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. In popular usage the term psychic describes paranormal forces and influences, and people sensitive to or able to use such paranormal forces are known as "psychics". The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The dash is a parenthesis basically. It's the same as saying "...people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces (psychics)." A comma can replace it, or it can be broken off to another sentence. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can't really find a way of improving it. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're doing before the dash is spelling out the adjective use, and after the dash the noun use. You could just say in a new sentence "People said (by believers) to have these powers are called psychics". The "by believers" is optional as I really believe it's implied. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism

the skettic dictionary mentioned that a man named edward crookes was the first to describe someone as apsychic mabe this information could be included somewhere int h article? Smith Jones 00:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. See Psychic#Origins. Regards. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice! – Dreadstar † 01:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought so. Nice find Smith. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Censored articles?

Why is there a block against articles about Matthew Manning? I noticed "Carlos Suarez" deleted one rather peremptorily. When I tried to enter a fuller, more complete article on Manning, giving plenty of references and citations, it was deleted as soon as I tried to save it. Is there some kind of vendetta going on? Pahuson 05:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean this:

Matthew Manning From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Matthew Manning (born 1955) is a best selling author and healer, and is well known for his purported psychic abilities. As a child he and his family were allegedly subjected to a range of poltergeist disturbances in their Cambridge home and later at Oakham School. Whilst writing a school essay Matthew discovered he had the ability to do Automatic Writing and found that in doing so it would weaken or completely stop the poltergiest activity. He also discovered he could do Automatic Drawing, and claimed to draw in the styles of many famous artists including Pablo Picasso. The events of his childhood and later investigations by Dr. George Owen of the Cambridge Psychical Research Society were published in a book entitled The Link, which eventually sold more than a million copies. Matthew Manning now resides in Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk and focuses his attention on psychic healing.

[edit] External links

• Matthew Manning - Official site
• Matthew Manning - Psychic Healer
• Examples of Automatic Drawings by Matthew

I'm not sure why it was deleted. However I suspect that it was because there are not enough sources besides his own site that mention him. Dig up a bunch of sources where he is mentioned in books, or magazines (which he doesn't publish himself), and you should be OK. It's all about sourcing. Read the Wikipedia guidelines.

If you have another one with that kind of sources, I'd be glad to insert it for you, and then we'll see what happens (: The admin who deleted it said "Biographical article that does not assert significance" so I assume I'm right- see this –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a very good source, but not enough in itself: [7] –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason listed for it's deletion was WP:CSD#A7 (failure to assert importance/significance). The problem is that people create articles about themselves on Wikipedia all the time (even when they aren't notable) and someone not familiar with the subject probably thought it was a "vanity" article or spam. It's not really a vendetta, it's lack of knowledge about who these people are. Vanity articles and non-notable subjects are critieria for speedy deletion, which doesn't require voting or presentation of sources to show notability. That's unfortunate, I think. In any case, here's what you can do about it [8]. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reason for "paranormal"

In this passage:

The existence of paranormal psychic abilities is highly controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community.

the reason for calling them "paranormal psychic abilities" is that it distinguishes them from stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's time for a rewrite

This article has progressed little in the past several months and most of the progress has been due to removing controversial relevant information that could have stayed if it was presented in a better way. This article is very short for such a subject and needs to be drastically improved. This article has Featured Article potential however the ONLY way to accomplish this is for all editors to work together to improve it. The most efficient way to treat this article is the way that Parapsychology was treated. If everyone agrees to work with me on improving this article then I can have it to F.A. status within a month. If no one wants to participate on a comprehensive group rewrite then I'm going to move onto other articles. Please add some input on this. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a rewrite on this article and some fleshing out of certain sections. I think it needs an entirely different approach than what is currently there, however (I'll elaborate later). I'm also concerned by the history of the article. Everytime a concerted effort is put into improving the article (consensus), a rogue editor comes in and makes massive changes soon after. It suffers from personal opinions of how the article should read rather than a collective opinion. So in rewriting the article, there should first be an agreement on the approach the article should take, and then there should be a group effort to support and maintain that approach. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd prefer a different method than used in Parapsychology. That was too cumbersome, and too many people felt ignored. I propose working on one section at a time on the talk page, or in a sandbox + the sandbox's talk page. Then inserting one section at a time with consensus. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles can't be worked on "one section at a time" as articles must flow as one piece of work. Parapsychology is an FA. This article will never reach that status nor will any other paranormal related article with the conventional method of doing things. It simply won't work. I won't spend time doing it any other way because with articles such as this it would be futile. Now I've mentioned this before, During the rewrite process things get hectic and if I overlooked a proposal simply reposting it at the bottom would be more than enough. Or even leaving a note on my talk page to remind me to implement it. Though as I've said before, If you want to try it your way then I could wait a month or so and come back and still see this article below the level of GA, such as I did with the EVP article, but my sitting back and waiting for you to realize that the conventional methods of editing these sorts of articles don't work means that the article takes longer and longer to improve. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-write

Ok, let's do it your way Wikidudeman. Here is the article in a sandbox. If there is consensus to do a re-write, I think Nealparr is right that the first thing we need to do is agree on a general approach. I sandboxed the consensus version, so we can also discuss Perfectblue's recent edits. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no "consensus" version if there is a neutrality tag placed anywhere in the article. A neutrality tag equals a dispute and a dispute means no consensus. My way is to overhaul the entire article and rewrite it over the next week or so in which point I'll invite anyone wanting to help to the specific subpage on my userpage where we can discuss changes until there is indeed a consensus. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is more or less the approach I'm taking. The only difference is that I'd prefer if our discussion took place here where it will be more open and obvious. Also, I'll take blocks of text which other editors have produced, and which have achieved consensus, and integrate them into the article. There are ways to get a group-rewrite to work.

Let's see what other people think. If neither you nor I are considered neutral editors, and people feel this is a problem, then I suggest we put it in Nealparr's user space, if he is willing. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea. We create a subpage on this article called "draft rewrite". I rewrite the entire page over the course of next week. Once I am done I'll invite everyone to come and contribute on the talk page and make proposed changes. To preserve the draft and prevent edit warring we must have someone make the proposed changes. It doesn't have to be me who makes them. However aside from that person making the proposed changes, No one else can edit the article ASIDE from making minor grammatical edits to improve spelling or grammar or format. Anything else must be done by the one person who implements the proposals once reached consensus. The person implementing the proposals could be myself or it could be Nearparr. Either is fine. A better idea is that we both could be "implementers" and if one person is away for a day or so then the other person can implement the proposals. The rules for implementers are the same as for normal editors, The implementer can not make changes to the article aside from minor grammar fixes other than implementing consensus proposals. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really opposed to any of these processes you guys are talking about, but before someone sandboxes it and starts writing, I'd like to work out a rough outline of the article first. I mean, we can take what's there now and start tinkering with it, but I'm thinking it needs a total complete rewrite, like from scratch. Not sure if anyone actually wants to take that on. The parapsychology article rewrite started off with decent content and was mostly integrating the other article and tinkering here and there. There wasn't massive deletions or rewordings. In this article, I feel, there is less good content to work with than bad. So we would need to come up with what we want to have in it before we start writing.

The first thing I'd like to see if people agree on is getting rid of most of the parapsychology stuff. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to get "psi" out of the intro because it's an obscure term, and mysteriously it finds its way back in. If it's going to be a decent article, a great deal of the parapsychology stuff has to go. There's only a handful of people on the Earth who have ever heard the term "parapsychology", but everyone has heard of psychics. Less people have heard of "psi" than own Macs. This article needs to be more New Age than science, because that's how "psychic" is out there in the world. Is anyone even up for that?

Then the next question is whether or not -everyone- is on board. We just recently came up with an intro that everyone was pretty OK with, and perfectblue completely changed it without a single comment about the intro on the talk page. A complete rewrite isn't going to go very far if it's changed as soon as it's installed. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We need to get everyone on board. But first we must have an idea of what we plan to do. Would you support a Parapsychology like rewrite, but with more wording changed? A total overhaul? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a sandboxed, controlled draft. But I'm saying that it needs a total overhaul. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Ask around to see if other major contributors agree. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So basically, we need someone who is willing to do a lot of research and writing, and is neutral to the subject. I suggest Nealparr, because he is neutral, and has a vision. I thought the previous intro was good, and I would like to see the first paragraph of the parapsychology section kept- the article needs one long paragraph on parapsychology. The section there now would be fine, for a longer article. We have to include something on parapsychology, though not a lot. I agree to making it more pop-culture.

I would like to avoid discussion of the reality or not of the subject. But if that cannot be done, then there is no way to avoid major coverage of parapsychology, because that is the other side of the debate. In other words, the skeptics bash it in the name of science, and so you have to have parapsychology there as the science which deals with the subject. This seems like a major problem. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, why don't you share your vision here? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral when it comes to wikipedia articles. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly getting much better at it (: ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget the rewrite. Just help me improve the article.

Let's forget the rewrite for this article. Let's just improve it. I'll start by offering suggestions. Please say "support" or "oppose" and briefly explain your reasoning. Here are some suggestions:

Remove the "Famous psychics" area

I have been looking for decent UK psychics and not really finding anything useful. I was impressed with www.americanassociationofpsychics.com as it is the only invitation only psychic directory on the internet that actually hand picks its members. I'll be honest with you I had some input to the site a few years ago when I was in the USA, however I still think it is the best psychic resource site I have seen. It may be a useful external link to consider. Please note I am back in the UK and have no involvement with this organization therefore this is purely my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbarrie (talk • contribs) 11:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This list is really not required and could be incorporated into the article body fairly easily. It needs to be erased. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace with the really notable psychics in history, like Nostradamus. I'll take care of this part. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer it just be removed. Integrated into the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Truly notable. Then we erase not-truly-notable. Otherwise the section will just re-appear. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove the infobox

Way too big and doesn't add to the article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Expand Popular culture and Fiction

This section needs expanding. It only mentions two examples while there are no doubt dozens. Someone needs to expand it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I wouldn't want to see it degrade into a list. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Change "skepticism" to "organized skepticism

Because lots of people are skeptical of psychics and psychic phenomena. These are the organized guys. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. That's too specific. While most of the skepticism mentioned is sourced from organizations, the vast majority of actual skeptics belong to no such organizations. "Skepticism" is much better IMO. The fact that the sources come from organizations doesn't mean that the only skepticism is "organized" whatever that really means. I'm skeptical of psychics and I belong to no organization. Most people who are skeptical of psychics or psychic abilities belong to no organizations and use the same arguments that the JREF or CSICOP use. "Skepticism" is more general and more encompassing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Six of one, half a dozen of another. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Place "psychical research" and "skepticism" into "Research"

The reason for this is because they're not separate topics. Both "psychical research" and "skeptical research" are research into the possibility of psychic abilities. They contrast with the rest of the article which talks about psychics in pop culture, history, fiction, etc. As I mentioned before, that's the approach I feel that the article should take because that's where "psychics" are in the mainstream pop culture. All the lab stuff, science stuff, skepticism, debunking, etc. is research, not pop culture. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this to be an article about psychics in pop culture and reduce the pro- con- arguments that show up in some of the other articles. As I've talked about before, most people are already familiar with and have made up their minds on whether psychics are real or not. Let's put that to the side and throw in some informative behind the story stuff. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article needs to elaborate on all of the relevancies of the term "psychic". I see "Skepticism" and "Psychical research" as quite different. Firstly, Not all skepticism includes actual research into the purported claims. Skepticism based on Occams Razor etc generally use no research. I see them as quite different. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah. The debunking ain't almost never research. Agree with Nealparr that we should reduce to minimum. Agree with WDM that they are seperate. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to see them integrated, even if under a different header. "Evaluating psychic phenomena" would work based on your distinctions. What I wouldn't like to see is the whole article suffer because of pro- and con- debates. Plus, I think the beliefs and skepticism statements should be integrated here where appropriate (unlike in the parapsychology article). An example of where it works is the sections I put together for Nostradamus and Delphi. They belong together in this article because the topic of this article isn't a science debate. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See how it is now and tell me what you think. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not liking the one word header. "Validity of psychic claims" would be better. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft it

I have a pretty comprehensive article in mind that will cover the "psychic" topic pretty well I think. But when I was editing earlier I only got about an 1/8th way through what I had in mind before things were switched around, changed, and reworded. I'm starting to think the drafting idea is the better way to go than a "free for all" improvement. Too many cooks in the kitchen at one time and what I have in mind might not be what you had in mind and vice versa. I might like yours better and you might like mine. This isn't a rant. I'm only saying that I'm going to wait until everyone's pretty much done with what they're doing, sandbox it, do what I wanted to do, then we can talk about my edits as a whole instead of in part. Let me know when everyone's done : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Drafts take too long. Just tell me what you have in mind and then we can start from there. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and sandbox it. People can edit away, then we can see what you do, and agree to put it in. The current lead at least is dreadful- I have no idea who put Randi in the lead, for pete's sake. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:21, 19 September 2007(UTC)

The mention of skepticism in the lead needs to be more. The article has two paragraphs about skepticism and only 1 sentence about it in the lead? This won't work. The lead must summarize the entire article including the skepticism section. Randi has a place in the article skepticism section therefore there is no reason why we shouldn't mention him in the lead. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added more info to the lead so that the Skepticism section is more proportionate to the skepticism content in the article. It's no longer half of the lead as it was before. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I did a small re-arrangement, and removed some WTA kind of stuff. Looks fine now. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would hold off on worrying about the lead until the article itself is done. There's still a lot more to do. As for whether Randi should be in the lead? I don't think that's a good idea. The lead should be an abstract of the content. It shouldn't be a regurgitation of every specific fact in the article. Besides, why Randi? Why not CSI, etc? I'm not picking on Randi, all the other specific stuff in the lead should go when we're all done. That's what the article itself is for. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, As the article currently stands, The lead reflects it very well IMO. An entire paragraph is dedicated to Randi in the article and 2 sentences in the lead. This is very proportionate. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, What else did you have in mind for the article? Please elaborate here. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that will be done in a day or anything. I'll be beefing up the history section, definitely (just ran out of time yesterday) and some other pop culture stuff. We're only at 18k, so it's all good. The parapsychology section was just a placeholder and needs to be rewritten. Bunch of stuff. I'll try to be quick, though, since it seems you're in a hurry for some reason. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All done with "Early seers and prophets". I think it's written well, so be gentle and hopefully we can discuss changes here before they're put in. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Add a "Critical resources" category

Anybody get a tremendous amount of heartburn if I add an "External links" section with a "Critical resources" subsection and the following link?:

• A review of Bible verses prohibiting psychic mediums, divination, and fortune telling

Thanks for your input --Sdiekmann 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We're currently working on rewriting the article and I'm sure at some point soon we'll get to the EL section. That's a tricky section because potentially it could be filled with any number of spam links to psychic hotlines, etc. To match WP:EL, I would personally like to see two or three links only, directly about the topic, and only from authoritative sources. Either that or no links at all. I'm a bit wary of scripture pages because, of course, there's hundreds of religious perspectives and linking to one justifies linking to any number of them. I think I'd be more willing to include a link to scriptures if the page was an authoritative source expressing the consensus of the entire Christian community. I'm not even sure if there is such a thing. That link, for example, is Lutheran and represents only one version of the Bible out of several. See the dilema? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find 3 or 4 good neutral links then we can do it that way. Otherwise we need probably 2 pro and 2 criticism links both in the same section. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. The article is on a Lutheran website, although it's essentially just a list of Bible verses, without much "commentary" except at the beginning, and there's no such thing as a "Lutheran" Bible. Look those Bible verses up in any translation and they will read essentially the same. There isn't a place where you can go that lists what the concensus is on any Christian "topic." I would think the majority of the Christian community would agree with what the article says. The Bible verses aren't taken out of context, and are from both the Old and New Testaments. It's goofy not to have any "con" point of view. That's what the "critical resources" section is for! Since I'm a Christian, I'll add this too: It's never a bad idea to get God's opinion also! At any rate I'll defer to your judgement after you've read my response and add what you want to add. Thanks --Sdiekmann 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We can surely mention the bible's stance on psychics in the article itself. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How about that Sdiekmann? Incorporating it into the article with that link being a source for the biblical view? It'd make a great addition to the "Belief in psychic abilities" section. I'd be happy to write it and would rather avoid too many ELs (personally I'm in favor of no ELs). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Although if it's about the Bible then it would probably fit best in the History section. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But the beliefs are current, which places it in the beliefs section ; ) It's not really historical. It's about the view that Christians should not consult false prophets or engage in occult practices. That's a current view. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it would probably be best citing some person elaborating on those views opposed to citing directly from bible verses. Though I think that most people who call themselves "christians" don't oppose so called fortune tellers. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to find some statistics on the beliefs published by a reliable theological source, but certainly not all Christians are opposed since some psychics refer to themselves as Christian. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot do actually. Though then we get into the semantic argument of "what is a Christian?". Can one be a Christian if one claims to be a psychic or consults people who claim to be psychics? Must one obey all of the bible to be a Christian or just some of it or perhaps none of it? In my experience most people who refer to themselves as "Christians" really don't know much about the bible to begin with and the ones who refer to them selfs as psychics or consults purported psychics likely don't even know that the bible forbids such things. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course none of this really has much to do with the article, since we're just presenting information according to weight, but it is my opinion that it's all subjective interpretation. The Bible doesn't forbid such things, it just forbids "false prophets". It doesn't forbid communicating with spirits or psychic advice. Moses, Jesus, Daniel and a host of others were all believed to have psychic abilities and communicated with spirits. Mary talked to an angel before giving birth. But they were believed to get their information from God. False psychic information was considered to be anything that doesn't come from God. Since that's totally a matter of opinion on what info comes from God and what doesn't, you have a lot of Christians out there who consider these things to be "gifts" from God. The entire book of Revelations came from a psychic vision. It ends up being a matter of opinion on whether that was from God and Edgar Cayce's stuff wasn't. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it says: "Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 19:31. Seems like it's saying not to seek advice from mediums or spiritualists regardless of their powers or lack thereof. Isaiah 8:19-20 says even: "Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?" in regards to spiritualists, basically it's assuming they do actually work. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I learned a long time ago not to get into deep religious conversations on the web : ) But I will say that every one of those things they say not to do, the "good guys" did too. Jesus didn't just talk to the dead, he raised the dead. But this is exactly why that link is biased and why I said it's just one version of the Bible. That wording comes from the New International Version. The King James Version reads "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God." Exact same passage, totally different wordings. Nothing about "mediums" and "spiritists", which are modern terms. This begs the question, which came first? The belief themselves or the scriptures to match the belief? Clearly someone didn't like Spiritualism when they wrote the New International Version. : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the Hebrew words used for "those who have familiar spirits" is literally "necromancer" or "one who speaks to the dead" and the translation for the "wizard" is yidd@`oniy meaning a "soothsayer". So it's pretty much conveying the same meaning. --Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And it is a common belief, so it belongs in the article. I'm just saying, off-topic, there's a lot that's interpretive there. Of course I have a tendency towards deconstruction, which means basically that I think everything is contexts within contexts within contexts, endlessly. I translate "conveying the same meaning" to "whatever meaning there was, it was lost long ago". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Anomalous cognition

This article needs to be merged with Anomalous cognition. The Anomalous cognition article is very short and means essentially the same thing. Input? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be merged with extra-sensory perception instead. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But what's the difference between "Psychic" and "ESP" anyway? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably the same difference as water and H₂0. The distinction as far as the articles go is that one really long article incorporating them both would be too long to read and would have trouble meeting Wikipedia's length parameters and guidelines for splitting articles. One's pop culture and the other's parapsychological. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the ESP article is unsourced anyway. I don't think it would be impossible to merge the two. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge Anomalous cognition. Keep ESP, definitely, per Nealparr. We need an article which expands on that theme.

However, I suggest merging Anomalous cognition into ESP. That is where it really belongs. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

'Anomalous cognition' is specific term coined by specific researchers for a specific purpose (anomalous perturbation and anomalous operation are also examples). The field of parapsychology is slowly embracing these terms because like the term 'psi' they are not loaded with the sorts of cultural connotations associated with terms like ESP or psychokinesis. Calling these phenomena 'anomalous' recognizes that they might not be paranormal. I do not recommend a merger. These articles can be expanded in the future, and their specific meanings elucidated. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is semantics. "Anomalous cognition" is just a fancy way of saying "Psychic" or "ESP". They all mean the same thing and should exist in the same article, At least "Anomalous cognition" and ESP that is. Any attempt at expanding the anomalous operation or Anomalous cognition would surely lead into redundant info between the articles and their alternative names. This is a textbook case for merging them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No it's not just semantics, though someone unfamiliar with the literature on the subject could easily make that assumption. Anomalous cognition is a much broader term than 'Psychic' or 'ESP'. If any merging was to be done, I would have to recommend merging ESP into the anomalous cognition article...not the other way around. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes "Anomalous cognition" different from ESP? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'Anomalous cognition' describes behaviors related to memory, attention, perception, action, problem solving and/or mental imagery that deviate from what is expected. 'Extra Sensory Perception' suggests that there is an additional sensory channel that scientists have not discovered yet. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the article says "Anomalous cognition is a blanket term used to describe the transfer of information to a subject through means other than the 5 traditional senses.". Which seems to be Synonymous with ESP. Perhaps you need to change the Anomalous cognition article to better suit that. Also, If Anomalous cognition is simply behavior related to the mind that deviates from what is expected, then perhaps it should be merged with Mental disorder instead. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Those articles certainly need a lot of work, but I've had to prioritize how I spend my time here at Wikipedia. Lots of articles here on parapsychological topics are either poorly worded or just plain wrong.

Mental disorders are behaviors that deviate from the norm and are also disabling or distressing to the experient. The DSM-IV now recognizes that there is a category spiritual/paranormal experiences, which is not indicative of mental illness. The [http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Anomalous-Experience-Examining-Scientific/dp/1557986258/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-9907971-4530509?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190387095&sr=8-1 Varieties of Anomalous Experience], a book published by the American Psychological Association is an excellent resource on the topic if you are interested in these distinctions. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the so called "anomalous cognition" which has no detrimental effect on the individual with said condition would probably be a type of Abnormal psychology or something to that effect. However as it stands the Anomalous cognition article implies that it's the same thing as ESP. If you can improve it dramatically then a merger isn't in order, however if the content of that article is totally separate from what it actually is them I would probably say it needs to be totally deleted. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Abnormal psychology is an excellent topic to bring up here because there is much overlap between that field and parapsychology. I've added your requested to the to do list at WP:PSI. Let's give it a couple of weeks and see what develops. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging isn't a permanent thing. Also, it can be re-directed right to the section of the article we want. If in the future there is someone who wants to really write the article, all you have to do is undo the redirect and eliminate the section in ESP. It's called forking. We could also leave the stub article. But nothing here is permanent or really worth spending a lot of time arguing over. This isn't a decision which need stand in the future. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

--Dseer 04:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)== Anything else need to be done? ==

I wanted to know if anyone had any drastic plans for improving it further. Please let me know if there are any such plans so that I can assist in them. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually. I will be expanding Modern psychics, Belief in psychic abilities, Psychic advice industry, and rewriting Psychic research. Hopefully a collaborative effort will go into rewriting the intro.

Where I could use some help is if anyone has any reliable sources that show statistics of belief in psychic phenomena, especially stats from a religious survey, post 'em please. I'm also looking for good reliable statistics on how much the psychic phone line industry brings in each year, or any other reliable stats related to the psychic advice industry (books published, sold, etc.) There was an article in Skeptical Inquirer that had this info but I can't find it. Any notable FTC smackdowns would help too, like sources for the Miss Cleo fiasco.

I want to cover it all in short, concise blurbs. I just need good reliable sources.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, I don't really have the time to finish up what I think needs to be in there : ) If I were just writing an unsourced document it'd be different. It'd only take an hour. But writing based on sources is a time consuming process and I know you guys want to hurry it along, so go ahead and put what you want in it. All I have at my disposal is one set of encyclopedias (sure it's a huge set, but there should be a variation on sources). The above sections are what I think need to be beefed up. On the modern psychics I got to the point where I mentioned the New Age surge (1970s and 1980s, dying out in the mid-1990s). I was going to add to that Edgar Cayce and Jeanne Dixon and briefly mention Sylvia Browne and others, expanding on the most recent psychics later in the pop culture section. What I've been doing is basing the structure off the sources I do have, and then finding alternate sources so it doesn't all come from the same place. Since I don't really have the time to source-write, I'm going to defer to you guys. Good luck. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no hurry. Take a while off, come back to it. When you're done, we can put it up for a good article. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to nominate it for GA status which might invoke some folks to improve the wording, grammar, formatting etc. I wanted to wait until you were done doing what you planned to do to it however as it currently stands it seems fairly well written and might meet GA criteria. After it goes to GA then we can start adding all of the additional information so that we can reach FA. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's...

"Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job."

If you think it's GA, go for it. I personally think it has some gaps, but maybe it's good enough to start. I wouldn't want the process to hinder rewrites and major modifications though. Like I wouldn't want someone to use GA as an objection for rewriting sections and moving things around. As long as that doesn't happen, cool. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait a while until we have it all worked out. You say that it's easy to write the info up but not hunt for sources for it? Type the information here and I will find the relevant sources if they exist. Then we can add it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any practicing psychics have contributed to the article, only commentators, so I don't see why this would be a GA. Let me point out a few misconceptions from the perspective of practicing psychics: These days, a large number of psychics have been either trained by psychics (courses are readily available) or self-trained, or both, and most of those involved believe that this shows that these basic abilities are natural to everyone, but often suppressed by social conditioning. Reputable psychics work with impressions that they interpret and refine in consultation with the client and do not claim absolute reliability. This is not "cold reading", in fact many psychics close their eyes to further facilitates the mental impressions that bona fide psychics work with which arise from client responses. Many psychics attribute the inherent problems with Randi's challenge to the fact that he creates the structure and the atmosphere based on his own beliefs about the abilities, not how they actually operate, which skews the results, as well as unconsciously using his own equivalent abilities to skew the results. Similarly to the so-called refutation by the child skeptic. Neither the carnival atmosphere that works well for stage magic which the old flamboyant and mostly discredited mediums used, or the prove it with repeatable tests, scientific approach advocated by skeptics, are conducive to the practice which as stated is primarily based on interpreting impressions in the mind that serve some need other than those objectives. The basic principle most commonly used in these arts is simple, to let the story unfold in the mind without censorship or expectations, which you can improve with practice. A simple example to show how those interested can do psychic readings using the highly popular Bostwick method which tens of thousands have applied to become psychics (see this: [http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Psychic-Clairvoyant-Reading/dp/customer-reviews/0738705926/ref=cm_cr_acr_dp_top/103-6355745-9595854?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&customer-reviews.start=1#customerReviews]) is to imagine a rose flower in your mind, and then watch how the flower image changes as you think about it symbolizing different people you may not know that well (most people seem to be able to validate that and see some significance with the image shifts with a little practice and many thousands each year use similar means to discover that they too are psychics, whatever that means). The so-called psychic industry may be full of scams, but they do not reflect all psychics, and what are considered more reputable psychics know their limitations, and don't want dependency and so encourage others, including clients, to learn as well, which also improves the value of the results from the sessions. The article is imbalanced because what commentators speculate is not the same as the psychic perspective. --Dseer 04:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does not need people who claim to be psychics contributing to it in order to be a GA, all it needs is to meet the GA criteria, which can be done if written by anyone. The article cites claims from people who claim to be psychic and cites facts from reliable sources concerning people who claim to be psychic. Having self-described psychics edit it isn't required for GA status. Most of the other stuff you've said seems to be original research and I won't argue about the existence of psychic ability or the legitimacy of Randi's challenge here. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is for the record you've created a strawman article on the subject in your selection of these pychic sources and have excluded relevant material that can be sourced, which is predictable without any psychic abilities, given your views. Of course you don't care for anyone who claims to have experience with the methods psychics use editing here because they might know of and cite material from published sources you do not approve of and which contradicts your position about those methods, and so why would anyone bother. However, there is no "original research", I have accurately paraphrased what is in published books written by psychics that could be sourced. You have also excluded any sources critical of Randi's challenge or its validity, presenting only the view about it that you favor. Nobody is going to waste any time here trying to source this given how you manage this article, so carry on. Fortunately, anyone with a more open mind really interested might not be fooled even if you engineer a GA despite blatant information suppression and POV in the article. It just that in case someone reviews this talk page in the process, this engineering should be exposed for what it is, the creation of a strawman "psychic". --Dseer 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the fact is, attributable sources on modern psychic methodology and general ability to learn methods do exist and could include besides the reference above sources like [http://www.amazon.com/Psychic-Healing-Book-Amy-Wallace/dp/1556435274], [http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Psychic-Development-Chakra-Clairvoyance/dp/1578630231/ref=pd_rhf_f_t_cs_2/103-6355745-9595854], [9], etc. (there are many such sources). A summary description of the modern methods being widely taught today to those desiring to learn to be psychic are relevant because the article is about the term psychic, not just skeptics and their selective explanations and strawman potrayals of what is going on. Also, regarding Randi's challenge, is it not considered as fair or genuine by psychics on many grounds, for example,[10], [11] and [12], which includes the rationales I mentioned. It is not necessary for NPOV to dwell on these objections since the subject isn't mainstream science, but merely reference that they exist since Randi's offer is there in the article. It makes no sense to me to merge this with anomalous cognition since psychic practice includes not just passive cognition, but active practices based on psychic cognition. --Dseer 03:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Further note: I had not paid attention before to the edit warring and dispute resolution going on between skeptics and non-skeptics regarding psychisms and paranormal articles. After reviewing the history over the last couple days, I see that Wikidudeman has made serious attempts to collaborate over time despite having a skeptical position. While the defects I mentioned are legitimate and sourced, it's understandable why Wikidudeman would in good faith not recognize these issues, particularly the way this article presents psychics from the POV of commentatators and erroneously extrapolates a strawman from the most famous ones. I have no objection to the article clearly stating that psychic abilities are not accepted by the vast majority of mainstream science and that skeptics believe they can reproduce what psychics do in non-paranormal ways. The key points I would like to see mentioned more clearly are that: (1) As the link in that section of the article actually illustrates, the majority of today's ordinary, sincere psychics see these abilities as something everyone (including skeptics) is born with to some extent and has experienced, but most born in modern civilized countries discount and rationalize away into the subconscious due to social conditioning, and for that reason further development later in life is still possible; (2) As the many "how to" references describe, developing pyschic abilities is primarily learning to pay attention to and interpret mental and sensory impressions that arise and improving through practice, but with significant distinctions between that practice and beyond cold readings techniques which skeptics assert explains it all.--Dseer 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a "beliefs" section [13] where the reliably sourced information about the notable beliefs of psychics can be documented. The wording cannot be such that it appears that Wikipedia shares these beliefs, however that information can be presented in the article. What you're looking at currently is an unfinished article. It's likely that information about the beliefs of psychics will make it in there eventually. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro is not encyclopedia-style

Wikipedia article introductions do not begin with American-dictionary-style pronunciation guides and etymologies. Nor do they begin with definitions ("The term Psychic is commonly used ...") Here's a draft of something that might be more in keeping with the encyclopedia style:

A psychic is a person who claims to have unusual powers of perception or influence, such as extrasensory perception (ESP) or psychokinesis. The belief in psychic abilities has a long history, going back to ancient oracles and prophets who were said to foretell the future. Modern interest in psychic abilities dates to the Spiritualism movement of the mid-nineteenth century. Today, the existence of psychic abilities is disputed. Parapsychologists claim to study ESP and other abilities, while skeptics and debunkers regard psychic claims as fraudulent or deluded. Psychic abilities are a frequent theme in popular fiction, with many fantasy and science fiction stories and television shows based on the notion.

Any comments? --FOo 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on adding more to the article in an effort to get it to good article status, along with Wikidudeman and others. I've been slacking a bit but plan to come back to it soon. So the intro will probably change over time. Your intro is as good as any in the meantime, but are so many "claims" really necessary? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start. The intro seems reasonably balanced (though the word claim is used too often) but the term psychic can refer both the asserted abilities themselves or to those who assert they have one or more of them, which should be spelled out in the first sentence. The intro doesn't reflect the significant fact that belief in such abilities is found pre-historically, and in indigious cultures all over the world, as an integral part of shamanistic beliefs and practices predating more modern, motheistic religions, not just Grecian oracles and ancient religious prophets. Not only is the existence of such abilities accepted by even in modern times by major religions from the East such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, but historically such abilities are acknowledged in the religious literature of monotheistic Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and by most of the great western thinkers prior to the last few centuries, which technically makes the viewpoint of many modern rationalists and skeptics still a minority POV worldwide. And, while modern public interest in psychic abilities in the West does primarily date to the rise of the Spiritualism movement of the mid-nineteenth century which later gained the support of many notable advocates, it should be noted that inspiration can also be found in the Theosophical Society and Alice Bailey, among other sources. Instead of saying parapsychologists "claim" to study psychic abilities, a more NPOV statement would be that parasychologists attempt to study and validate psychic abilities using what they consider scientifically based methods, but have not proven their existence. And, one could say that Skeptics and debunkers regard psychic claims as fraudulent and deluded, and offer alternative, non-paranormal explanations for claimed psychic abilities, but have not yet disproven the existence of such abilities. --Dseer 03:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts in response:

How do we distinguish psychic abilities from divine abilities? Clearly some spiritualists regard them as the same, but it's my understanding that most parapsychologists consider ESP to be a materially testable product of the human brain. Attempts have been made to detect psychic powers in terms of electromagnetic fields, for instance, whereas most religious believers would not consider the divine to be a physical phenomenon susceptible to such scanning.

If we construe "psychic" broadly to include (e.g.) all claims of precognition including (e.g.) the Oracle at Delphi and the Hebrew prophets, then we have a real difficulty. The people of those times did not have the notion of "psychic abilities", which is a far more recent coining. Attributing it to them backwards in time risks anachronism.

This also pertains to the relevance of religious figures and (especially!) prehistoric religion. The distinction between construing abilities as "psychic" vs. construing them as "divine" appears to be that the psychic can be studied, tested, mapped out, and proven. Even the theosophists (and their descendants in the Golden Dawn and Thelema movements) attempted to regularize and formalize the nature of spiritual abilities. In contrast, traditional religious adherents claiming unusual powers (miracles, acts of God) do not attempt to systematize them. We especially cannot attribute any such belief to prehistoric figures, since (by definition) we do not have written records of their intent or beliefs.

Regarding proof and disproof and debunkers, it is probably not best to enter into this too much in this article. The usual consideration (stemming from Occam's Razor and the tradition of analytic philosophy) is that the party who proposes the existence of an entity or ability has the responsibility to prove it. "You can't prove a negative" is the usual (over)simplification.

The usual approach of debunkers is probably better characterized as threefold: (1) to demonstrate that claimed abilities can be replicated with stage magic techniques (as done by Harry Houdini and more recently James Randi and Penn & Teller); (2) to challenge specific claimants to replicable, controlled tests of their abilities; and (3) to publicly advocate skepticism, doubt, and distrust of claims they see as unproven. --FOo 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The above includes certain presumptions that are one POV but can legitimately be disputed. Many practicing shamans, metaphysicians and psychics do not presume the distinction between "psychic" and "divine" you are concerned about is valid. Nor is there such a consensus that "psychic" can be "studied, tested, mapped out, and proven." A parapsychologist may presume such a distinction for their own purposes because they want to either prove or disprove such abilities based on hypothesis using scientific methodology. A hypothesis that such abilities can be detected like an electromagnetic fields would, for example, need to be tested with some sort of Faraday Cage if true, but I don't see any such agreement that is the case among those who claim the abilities. Some religions may presume such a distinction between what comes directly from God and what comes from some other influence to establish their "truth", for example, the distinction between accounts of prophets and pagan seers like the Witch of Endor or Oracles or Celtic shamans. But as long ago as Plato in the West (not to mention Eastern traditions or shamanic traditions going back millenia, for example, the vision of Crazy Horse of a higher reality), a Theory_of_Forms has asserted that there is an underlying and more primary reality that affects the physical but is not physical. It is a suspect presumption to conclude that a consensus of psychics believe that what they claim to do is subject to proof using the kind of scientific tests, more likely that is not the case. The theory that Shamanism has a commonality around the world and has pre-historic roots that include most modern religions and for which general psychic abilities are an integral part of this belief has signficant support and is not the absurdity claimed merely because the term psychic is a modern invention. As for the assertions of Theosophists and Occultists (they are different) that such abilities can be cultivated and that there are distinctions between higher and lower "siddhis", using the ancient Indian term, that is based on the belief that there are multiple levels of existence and not just heaven and earth. Occam's Razor has value but the issue must be properly framed. In simplest terms, if the assertion is that everyone is psychic and not just a few people with special abilities and that a more primary reality is influencing this one, the implications of that being true are that isolating outside influences for controlled experiments is very difficult. The amplification of the debunking position into those three elements is fine, however, it should say that debunkers claim to be able to reproduce everything using stage effects, not that that is proven. Houdini did not conclude that stage magic explained everything, only that he hadn't found a case where it couldn't yet. Again, the defect is that allowing adversaries to frame their oppositions position is not something Wikipedia should condone.--Dseer 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the Randi Challenged slightly to de-POV it. For the record, I am neither an adherent nor a skeptic. I think that the majority of psychics and Randi probably deserve each other in a marriage made in some Swedenborgian heaven (or hell). I just think its more fair to point out that Randi does seem to have his own thing going on here and its not all one way! --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To explain

To explain this, "Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries." [14] Thus, peer review has nothing to do with it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My version of the intro

There was a claim that I "deleted" stuff from the intro. I took out two sentences that awkwardly referenced parapsychology in the lead, true, but I did this because this is an article about psychics, not parapsychological investigations. The relevant points here are that psychics claim to do certain tasks and others dispute those claims.

Aside from this, I removed some particular attribution and reworked the sentence into an assertion of fact rather than an opinion.

Please explain what was wrong with this.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You did delete things from the intro, you even admit this in your second sentence. The previous version was sourced and provided more detail. It was in no way awkward and it provided useful sourced info about the credibility of psychics. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, a blanket reversion of deleted contents removes other things that I did. Treating my edit solely as a deletion is flatly a misinterpretation of the edit. Secondly, the credibility of parapsychology itself is questionable. So polluting the lead with questionable attempts at positing credibility is not only confusing: it doesn't even lend itself to a decent introduction. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Edward that the deleted content was good, and that attribution is very good also- see WP:ATT and [15] Please also do not use WTAs such as "have pointed out". ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"have pointed out" is not a wort to avoid. The point really is that parapsychology is a bit of a red herring for the lead. I certainly don't object to the article discussing parapsychology, but the wending and winding ways it goes about discussing things that may or may not be data/evidence for psychic abilities from parapsychology is so off-topic as to be almost unreadable. Also particular attribution opposes the particular attribution being done in this paragraph. There is no reason to single out a single skeptic as if that's the only person who thinks that psychic abilities are made up. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey SA. Whatever else is going on and I don't pretend to know I have only done some copy editing, this was a sizable deletion without discussion. I would think that the "whatever else" part should be discussed. That's what discussion is for ... the whatever else.But hey, I have no desire to edit war on this ... just a comment and a move towards a more consensual edit.(olive (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Look, I explain myself above. Perhaps you could try taking some of your own medicine and using the talkpage before making edits if you really feel so strongly? Saying something like "heads-up, I didn't like that edit and here's why" might go a long way toward making me feel a bit more welcome as an editor. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a lot of sourced material there which, apparently, people would rather discuss before it is removed, or would rather keep. It is not appropriate to edit war over a change which you make to an article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the "sourced material" is still in the appropriate section. Is there any justification for having it in the lead also? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about an extraordinary statement and its reference

In the intro, I found this:

Parapsychology, uses a variety of methods such as the Ganzfeld experiment to test for extra-sensory perception and random number generators to test for psychokinesis. In given instances these experiments may suggest evidence of psychic ability, however the scientific community outside parapsychology does not accept these experiments as sufficient evidence for psychic functioning.

I found this odd because I have never heard of a scientific experiment suggesting evidence of psychic ability, so I went to the source, but couldn't find anything in the article that suggested some experiments possibly suggesting psychic ability. Did I miss something? Thanks! LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that your edit summary said "question to the panel about a claim made in the intro and its source". I guess it was your unconscious observation of goings on in Wiki that prompted you to specify the word panel. So many articles' talk pages create the impression that cliques/cabals/whatever have some sort of ownership of individual articles. A pretty pass indeed. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is what that article says:

In some areas of paranormal investigation, such as extrasensory perception (ESP), the research is already often better done than much orthodox scientific research, with controls and double-checks most scientists would regard as overkill. Skeptics mostly still feel that the intrinsic implausibility is so great that nothing short of airtight and well-repeated research would be sufficient to support ESP. Little or none of the existing research rises to that level, so we remain skeptical. (Some recent work has been of high quality, see Ray Hyman's article, "The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality", in the March/April 1996 Skeptical Inquirer, pp 24-26.) Had skeptics said some 40 years ago that all we wanted was reasonable quality replicated research, we might now be having to eat our words.

This seems enough to me, but there are many other references if you want to challenge this passage (; Remember it only says that some studies have come out positive "suggested", not that the thing is proved. There have been many such experiments -hundreds- of varying quality, ranging from what are possibly frauds or artefacts to studies where skeptics could find no problem with the method. The referenced article says why it is not accepted science now. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I appreciate the thoughtful and well presented response that addressed my question. Thank you.

I am not challenging the statement. I guess that my challenge is more about the statement-reference connection. It jumped out at me, and I found it a powerful statement; more powerful than I would have expected concerning psychic power and scientific evidence, and I followed up on the reference. I am still not sure where it says "some experiments have come out positive". From my reading it, it says that skeptics are setting the bar very high .... to the point where most or none (depending on the skeptic I suppose) accept the results. I'm not seeing where it says that there have been any experiments with results confirming anything?

The closest thing I can see here is Little or none of the existing research rises to that level, but I (my opinion) think there is a difference between saying "little <sic> research rises to that level", and "some studies support" or "some studies have come out positive" (supporting psychic power). My interpretation of this is that there may be an occasional experiment that comes out positive, but that over the long run, there has been no pattern of experimental success to confirm existence. Or, that it might also mean something like "there may be some studies that have murky results, and are not as definitively negative as others." My background is that no one experiment's result is enough to say "such-and-such is confirmed". I would say something to the effect of "Only a small number of studies have ever had positive results, and that these results have not been sufficient to convince skeptics of psychic abilities." or "while most experiments have not supported the existence of psychic powers, some studies have not been as definitive" .... I dunno something along that line ..... again, it is my opinion, my take, my interpretation .... it is not necessarily the only one, and I don't want you to take this as me telling you that this is the way it has to be. Again, thank you for the response. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to give responses (; There are a lot of studies. The meta-analysis of these studies give very positive results. The repetitions of the Ganzfeld (when one does not include variations on the original protocol) are very positive. There are some studies which are negative or null. There is not a file-drawer problem with these results. The results with psychokinesis and (IMHO) especially telepathy experiments are (again IMHO) similar to what Richard Wiseman said about Remote viewing experiments, and what the article we have as a reference mentions: that the results are up to the standards of other sciences, but the bar is so high for such things that science doesn't accept it. There seems to be an agreement among the most informed skeptics that while in some experiments the standards are high and the results are positive, the results would have to be extraordinary in to prove psychic phenomena, and they are not extraordinary enough.

Thus the problem with stating the thing on Wikipedia is that, basically, editors are not aware of the statements of the informed skeptics (Wiseman is a member of CSICOP/CSI), and are anyway more skeptical even than that. They therefore are always wanting to say "there is no evidence." So that's one problem. Another is that it's just hard to present the nuanced skeptical argument here: there are lots of positive results, it's been proven to the standards of other sciences, but it's not enough. The general reader, if told that, is not going to buy the skeptical argument. So how do you say something that is accurate, yet does not ensure that the general reader will go away with the impression that psychic phenomena are proved? That is the real question as I see it.

The statement most accurate would be that "depending on which data are included, the results vary between extremely statistically significant and null." The meta analysis done by skeptics on ganzfeld, if I recall, included many studies which did not conform to the original protocol. When these studies are eliminated, the results seem to be confirmed by several labs. The ganzfeld, for example, works with visual targets, but not with musical targets. There are other IMHO more robust effects such as presentiment, which seem more easily replicable (peer review status on these is less). Given all this I think that it might be a wonder we have as good a statement as we do.

I would suggest this: "Parapsychology, uses a variety of methods such as the Ganzfeld experiment to test for extra-sensory perception and random number generators to test for psychokinesis. Parapsychologists say that the data from these experiments, when combined, provide strong proof of some types of psychic phenomena. Partly because the intrinsic probability of psychic phenomena is considered very small [source] these results have not been accepted outside the field of parapsychology." (There is a statement that they're generally accepted on the Parapsychological Association website, so it is generally agreed in the field.) That's as good a statement as I can come up with now. You have points on both sides of that statement which could be challenged. For instance, "considered very small" has no source. I consider it non-controversial, but you might have a pro-paranormal person challenge it. You will also have skeptics here come and say it comes off too positive. What do you think? Talk to you tomorrow. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of my version above is very easy to source. The second sentence has lesser sourcing, but I'm not sure it is controversial. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Link deletion from intro paragraph

I have removed a link from the intro that does not link to information the paragraph references. Encyclopedic references are poor references as well.(olive (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

I despair of being able to view that page on my connection, however, the source is not necessary to the statement from the looks of the thing, so I have no problem with your taking it out. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good then, but the point is that the link links to the Brittanica Home page, not to a reference for any material in the article.(olive (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Some justification

This is for the following reasons:

1. No source that does not advocate for the existence of psychic powers states that there is a controversy. Thus, this is essentially a pseudo-controversy (a one-sided controversy).
2. We need to avoid particular attribution to one named skeptic.
3. I tried to rephrase the sentence about to what skeptics attribute demonstrations of psychic powers as a direct attribution. I even used the word "attribute".
4. The particular experiments that were listed are all very specific instances and since psychic powers are so broad, discussing them in the lead gives them undue weight with respect to the topic at large.
5. The idea that parapsychology experiments suggest anything is suspect. Surely, those parapsychologists who believe that psychic phenomena exist believe that there are experiments which demonstrate this. However, we need to be careful to attribute this belief to those people.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The definition of Psychic in the article reads:

“ The word psychic refers to the ability to perceive things hidden from the senses through means of extra-sensory perception. ”

Here is an alternate proposal:

“ The word psychic refers to the alleged ability to perceive things hidden from the senses through means of extra-sensory perception. ”

I think the word "alleged" is necessary because the claim of psychic ability comes from a particular group of people who are outside mainstream scientists. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several things here. One, a Psychic is a cultural artefact [16]. Two, extra-sensory perception is linked and thus serves as framing per this. And three, it only says it "refers," not that the thing exists. Most important, perhaps, this is not an article on science- in the main. Of course it touches on science, but that is not the primary focus: see previous discussion on that point. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You say "And three, it only says it "refers," not that the thing exists". Oh really! "The ability" and "the alleged ability" do not mean the same thing, or convey the same meaning. Tell you what, have a look at out ghost article, which starts with the intro "A ghost is said to be the apparition of a deceased person............". Would you suggest removing the words "said to be"? Didn't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.80.166 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, in the case of ghosts there are other ideas about what they might be, for example impressions left in places by the minds of living people. If, however, the term "ghost" always referred to the apparition of a deceased person, we could say so in just that way. In this case, the word simply refers to the ability. It certainly doesn't refer to the alleged ability, usually, but rather it refers to the ability itself, whether that ability is real or not.

I think people have to get the idea that you can define a word without stating that its referent exists. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Are you having a laugh? You say "it refers to the ability itself, whether that ability is real or not". So sometimes it refers to an ability that is not real! You think people "have to get the idea that you can define a word without stating that its referent exists". Sorry, but no. The English language wins out here. If you refer to an ability, a capacity to do something, it must exist and you need to be able to show that it does. If there is a claimed ability, or theoretical ability, then we need to honestly and accurately use the words claimed or theoretical. 222.153.80.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The language wins, and unicorns have single horns. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your childish response demonstrates why your attitude is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. When you try to establish your POV in Wiki in the future, don't be surprised to see me advise other editors on how you treat serious comments here. 222.153.80.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with trolling before. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Which defining sentence is better?

Does the word psychic refer to the ability to perceive things hidden from the sense through ESP or just the alleged ability to perceive things through ESP? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Respondents to this RfC should refer, for the above question, to the Arbitration Committe decision on the Paranormal, specifically these two sections: [17][18] The decision is very specific to this case. Per that decision, we might want to simply include the word "paranormal," as a substitute for a qualifier, see this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Note

Respondents to this RfC do not need to refer to any arbitration decisions to offer their opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)

Unmodified The article should make abundantly clear that such abilities are phantastical, but alleged or a similar qualifier would be bad style. Consider: According to Last Thursdayists, the alleged Adam and Eve had no navels. Clear and forthright writing should obviate any difficulty adequately distinguishing between in-universe and out. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This request was not showing up on the {{RFCsci list}}. So far as I can tell, it appears to have been filed correctly, but I removed the wikiformatting from the template call in case that was mucking up the bot for some reason. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the article does make things clear as to how it's seen in skepticism and mainstream science. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Qualifier not needed. The article title "psychic" frames the topic as a "cultural artifact", as ArbCom described it, therefore the qualifier "alleged" is not needed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Qualifier not needed. Saying "alleged ability" in the definition implies something different than you think. According to one legitimate parsing of the phrase, it implies that any person who alleges that he is a psychic, is by definition a "psychic". In the interest of having clear and unambiguous language, I'd say leave out the qualifier. --Steve (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Qualifier not needed. . If a person uses ESP, they are a psychic. ESP doesn't exist, hence there are no psychics. Fictional abilities are not beter explained by putting "alleged" in from of them all. Also Steves grammar point applies - a person using ESP is not an alleged psychic, he is by definition psychic.Yobmod (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Qualifier not needed. "ESP doesn't exist, hence there are no psychics." To prove a negative requires infinite knowledge and infinite experiment, the latter all with the same outcome, that is basic logic. I am used to Wikipedia editors, especially anonymous ones, being absolutely brilliant, knowing so much than us open types with declared qualifications, experience, etc., mostly verifiable, though that comment exceeds most. When are you next going to say, "Let there be light", then take a few days rest? (RichardKingCEng (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC))
• Qualifier not needed. Psychic should refer to someone who has these abilities. If alleged is added to the definition then psychic refers to anyone who is rumoured to have these abilities and they can truthfully say they are psychic according to the Wikipedia definition of the word.85.133.32.70 (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Qualifier not needed. unnecessary addition that lowers readability. --Ludwigs2 02:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Paranormal arbitration

Respondents to this RfC should refer, for the above question, to the Arbitration Committe decision on the Paranormal, specifically these two sections: [19][20] The decision is very specific to this case. Per that decision, we might want to simply include the word "paranormal," as a substitute for a qualifier, see this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The phrase "alleged ability" as a term is not addressed in those proposed decisions. What is addressed is the term self-described psychic or purported psychic. Since the adjective is on ability and not psychic, a clear argument can be made that you are attempting to misapply the ruling. In fact, at this article we are charged with offering a definition of the very term that arbcom says carries allegation qualifiers automatically. So in defining a term that arbcom admits is itself an allegation, we should be honest with the reader and tell them what the allegation is. Otherwise how are we to let them know? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps you didn't read it carefully enough. I'll bold the text to focus on: ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts" and "Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal"" I simply propose that extra-sensory perception is such a phrase.

Now, read that one more time with different emphasis "Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief"," They are talking about the lead as a whole, not just each sentence of the lead taken as a separate piece of text which must be NPOV. We then examine:

"It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing." They are clearly talking here about the first mention, the definition. That is quite clear. The case was closed around July 26, 2007, and the Jean Dixon article from that date says:

Jeane Dixon (January 5, 1904 – January 26, 1997) was one of the best-known American astrologers and psychics of the 20th century, due to her syndicated newspaper astrology column, some well-publicized predictions and a best-selling biography." [21] They obviously pulled the TV thing out of thin air, but the intent of the decision is clear.

As another indication that the Arbitration Committee does not consider sentences in an article in isolation from the rest of the article; and, furthermore, that they do not even consider the first paragraph of the lead in isolation from the rest of the article, they say:

Articles exist which contain flat assertions of fact regarding fantastic formulations, for example Astral projection starts off "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an out-of-body experience achieved either awake or via lucid dreaming or deep meditation." and contains nowhere in the article the viewpoint that there is no such thing.

[22]

The Arbitration Committee, in other words, takes a common sense standpoint regarding Wikipedia articles on the paranormal.

I think that about sews it up. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just been looking up how Merriam-Webster defines such things as Psychic, Telepathy, parapsychology, ghost. [23]. Dictionaries are not always good guides, but at least this shows that mainstream definitions of things do indeed usually just define things without regard to their epistemological status. This even in a dictionary which does not have a chance to discuss it later. How much more so, then, in an encyclopedia with space to discuss such issues after the term has been defined. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the major point of my argument. There is no framing going on because we are trying to delineate the term in the article about the term. Framing can only occur in articles about psychics, not in the article on the subject itself. There is no framing in this article at all right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the part about considering more than single sentences at at time. We can frame one article with another, as we are framing this article with ESP. However, you're right that we have in some article or articles to explicate the debate, otherwise framing is useless. That is why we explicate the debate. At some point a reader is going to have to read the detailed information. We can't just have a circular framing mechanism, but rather we must assume that the reader will look at more than the first sentence or paragraph of a lead, on some article or other. Nor can we, as you may be arguing, have one article by which all the others are framed, and then define the subject as balderdash.

Defining a term in a particular way is not explicating the debate. It's defining a term. If it is otherwise, it is likely to be POV. For that, see details elsewhere on this page. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

From where I am sitting, "alleged" carries the connotation of "not yet positively supported beyond accepted (and somewhat arbitrary) level of reason".

The question I see is to look at it from two perspectives: does evidence gathered by mainstream science accept this, and, does evidence gathered by the relevant field of study (parapsychology) accept this? The answer to the first is simple: no.

The answer to the second may be more complex, but the answer based on what I am reading within the article must also be no. Certainly, as Martin pointed out, there are some experiments that provide some kind of positive result. Are these experiments within parapsychology a majority of experiments: they do not appear to be. Looking at the two relevant findings, in a whole, there appears to be a definitive no, and a strong maybe. My interpretation of that would be to say that at this time, the research is not strongly supportive of the existence of psychic phenomena, and as such should be an "alleged" phenomena. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to settle for the word "apparently." Parapsychology is a field which has been going on for over a century. Based on my reading of the thing, yes, most experiments have been positive. Meta-analyses of the experiments are overwhelmingly positive, without any obvious flaws, such as many null studies and a few extremely positive ones, file drawers, etc. The effect sizes remain the same over time except for the same leveling out as you see in the physical sciences. This is actually quite a strong argument, because you'd have to do some real fiddling indeed to achieve effect sizes which are about the same over 50 or more years worth of experiments. But again, I'm doing OR here, I'm not sourcing this, although I probably could.

The information on parapsychology has not been added to Wikipedia by me or other people because it just gets attacked too much. You have to go outside to see what has been happening. What's been happening over the last 20 years is basically this: the skeptics have been changing their tune. Some skeptics have made funny statements, which can be summed up as "it's got the evidence, but it doesn't have evidence which is extraordinary enough." Others have simply called parapsychology a science. That you have these extremely biased sources saying this (which is more than sufficient for Wikipedia articles), is surprising -shocking even to me. It's shocking to me because the statement for example by Wiseman is beyond what I would have thought myself based on my own knowledge, but this guy is a CSICOP member.

You might want to look in here- the same thing has happened on mainstream science articles, which is that non-experts have for various reasons harmed them in the past [24] I'm not an expert on this, but I'm more expert than all but a couple of other editors in WP. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)