Talk:Telekinesis/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Talk Page Archive

Archive 9 has been created with a link at right. Archive 10, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 10" (same as creating an article). For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. There are also Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page on my User page for the beginner. (Please retain this notice, as it is mentioned in the Wiki talk page how-to article.) 5Q5 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not just have Miszabot automatically archive the page? Do you want me to set it up? MartinPoulter (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked out MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo and ordinarily I think it would great, but since this particular page's manual archiving code is held out as an instructional example to the greater Wikipedia community (those interested) to come and visit, and since I'm still available to manual archive, let's hold off on that. If I disappear from the article as an editor, then okay, but make sure you also remove the link here from the how-to archive page at that future time so editors aren't confused. Didn't know about that bot, thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus requested on adding external link to JSE archive

I would like to add the following peer-reviewed journal archive link to "External links" or "Published Papers on PK / TK" (which one would be best?). There are many articles concerning PK, usually using politically correct (and creative) cover terms such as "Operator-Related Anomalies," "Influence of Intention," "Anomalous Human-Machine Interaction," "Physical Interpretation of Very Small Concentrations," and so on. 5Q5 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Journal of Scientific Exploration Archive of peer-reviewed research articles, including PK subjects.

Personally, adding that EL to "Published Papers on PK/TK" doesn't bother me, but since it contains a wide range of papers on everything from reincarnation to luminous objects, it may not be strictly relevant. Might it not be more appropriate to add it to the Journal of Scientific Exploration article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I see on the archive link I gave above that linking to the individual PK papers (pdfs) is possible rather than requiring linking to the entire journal issues as I originally thought. Let me revise my question then. There are a lot of PK scientific papers in the JSE archive. Does anyone see any there that are significant enough to inlude as a link in the Wiki article Papers section? 5Q5 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I am slowly going through the scientific papers mentioned above and will have something to report at a later date. It's a lot of technical reading. 5Q5 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Aksakof or Aksakov?

An editor on 10 May 2010 in this edit changed the name of Russian researcher Alexander N. Aksakof to Alexander N. Aksakov in the line attributing the coining of the word telekinesis in the Terminology/Early History section. This, I suppose, needs additional verification if possible on what the Russian-to-English spelling translation actually is. It seems like a reasonable correction to me, as "Aksakov" is more in line with Russian spelled names, but the source material does spell it with an "f." I just wanted to mention this here in case anyone can comment. Unfortunately, Google isn't too helpful because many websites have used the Wikipedia page with "f" in the writing of their articles. 5Q5 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved, as best can. My research indicates unfortunately that the correct spelling of the name is dependent on which language is being used. I have encountered many different variations. First name: Alexander, Alexandre, Alexandr. Last name: Aksakof, Aksakoff, Aksakov. Because this is English language Wikipedia and the published English book and journal references I can find only indicate Aksakof or Aksakoff and not Aksakov, I am reverting the edit back to Aksakof, the way it originally read in the article. I believe the English Wiki article Alexandr Aksakov is wrongly titled. One good reason to support Aksakof or Akasoff is that he was fluent in German and translated German books. He may have chosen an ending of "of" or "off" himself to translate his Russian name because those letters are common in German (Hoffman, Hasselfhoff, etc.). On world Wikipedia, there are four additional articles: French: Alexandre Aksakof, Portugal: Alexandre Aksakof, Swedish: Alexander Aksakov, Russian: Аксаков, Александр Николаевич. Posted by 5Q5

2006 meta-analysis criticised

The meta-analysis referenced in the third para (Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators--A meta-analysis) has been responded to in another paper, which points out various problems with the analysis. As the conclusions of the original paper are disputed on several grounds, it probably should not be given such a prominent position in this article, at least until the criticisms are shown to be invalid.

Alternatively, the response could be referenced also. It can be found here:

Thoughts anyone?

Bazmatic (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Sourcing and attribution and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science-related articles)#Respect secondary sources (disclosure: the latter is an essay that I wrote based on the corresponding guideline for medical sources), we should not use a comment from Dean Radin to rebut or detract from the conclusions of a meta-analysis. There might be a place for the comment paper in the body of the article if clearly attributed, but it would almost certainly represent undue weight to do so in the lead. I am not sure at the moment, but if you make a specific proposal we can talk about it. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who originally put the line in the article, but, perhaps it could be reworded from: "A meta-analysis of 380 studies in 2006 found a "very small" effect which could be explained by publication bias." to: A meta-analysis of 380 studies in 2006 claimed to have found a "very small" effect,[ref] which also could be explained by publication bias.[ref] Sorry, I don't have the second new bias ref editor Bazmatic mentions. 5Q5 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources

This article needs a purge of [[[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. This includes Randi's email newsletter, books published through iUniverse, and personal web sites. These are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia's definition. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that "reliable source" is not a boolean, black-and-white thing, particularly in this field. The JREF newsletter appears to have an element of editorial control - it's not just one person's random babble - so I think it's perfectly reasonable as a source for things that Randi or would-be-testees claim to have done. It's difficult to get more reliable sources in this area, alas... bobrayner (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources to which you refer are a skeptic and parapsychologist writing about Martin Caidin. Even's Caidin's article "Telekinesis" was published in Fate magazine and not self published. Granted, the Heath book PK Zone was self published in its first edition by iUniverse. An updated version titled Mind-Matter Interaction is being published by McFarland, a regular publisher. The same Caidin material appears in that. I will change the reference tomorrow when I have more time. 5Q5 (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. I replaced both Heath's and Randi's references to the quoted material on Caidin. 5Q5 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus requested - clean up pop culture section

(Settled: the consensus among participating editors was to shorten the section in favor of proposed revision #2.)

Delete to proposed revision #2. I'd like to delete/revise the material below from the popular culture section. Some of it is mine and some other editors (an editor recently readded Charmed w/mispelling). These can all be found on the offsite Hollywood/former Wiki pop culture list via the external link. Having these in the article just keeps inciting the public to add more examples. Long-time editors here know we have been through this before on previous talk pages. Please add your input: Keep or Delete. 5Q5 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

PROPOSED DELETION:

Numerous characters have the ability to control the movement of objects using "the Force" in the Star Wars canon. The character Prue from 1998 supenrnatural drama Charmed exibited powerful telekinesis. In the 1988 anime movie Akira, a few of the main characters use telekinesis throughout the film. In the 2009 film PUSH and the subsequent DC Comics series, the "Mover" characters Nick Grant and Victor Budarin display a very advanced mastery of telekinesis. Also in 2009, the U.S. soldier character Lyn Cassady portrayed by actor George Clooney was able to stop a goat's heart using psychic powers in the feature film The Men Who Stare at Goats, inspired by the book of the same title. Also in the Sonic the Hedgehog, one of the characters, Silver the Hedgehog has psychokinetic powers to destroy enemies. There are many Pokemon that practice telekinesis. Most of these Psychic-type Pokemon, and they have telekinesis-inspired moves such as Psychic and Confusion. Notable examples of such Pokemon include Mewtwo, Alakazam, Jirachi, Metagross, and Gardevoir. In the Mortal Kombat Series, the character Ermac has telekineses.

In the television series Heroes (2006–2010), the serial killer Sylar, portrayed by actor Zachary Quinto, frequently exhibited telekinetic ability.

The comic book character Jean Grey of the X-Men exhibits extremely powerful telekinetic ability.

PROPOSED REVISION #1 (another is below):

Psychokinesis has been an aspect in movies, television, computer games, literature, and other forms of popular culture. An early example in literature is the 1952 novella Telek by Jack Vance. In the 1976 film Carrie, based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, Sissy Spacek portrayed a troubled high school student with telekinetic powers. She was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress, the first psychokinetic character portrayal in a film ever to be so recognized (Ellen Burstyn was the second, in 1980's healer-themed film Resurrection). Psychokinesis is also commonly used as a power in a large number of videogames and role playing games.

I don't mind the cleaned up and stripped down version, but implying the Best Actress awards to mean that the actresses "characters" have been "recognized" by the academy is a bit over the top. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Per your concern I changed "psychokinetic character" to "psychokinetic character portrayal" in the above proposed revision. The Oscars are given or nominated to recognize achievment in acting out a character by an actor. Thanks for catching this. 5Q5 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If we have a 3rd party source such as a film reviewer or movie historian noting the number of Oscars given to psychokinetic character portrayals, that would be fine to report it. But as far as I know, we don't. Spacek and Burtsyn's oscars are notable. But whether they were given because the character was psychokinetic (or just psycho) we can't know, e.g. the "ever to be so recognized" bit is needless puffery, so I took it out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The oscar nominations at the least need to be mentioned in the article; otherwise, "notable" is a subjective term and everyone will be adding their favorite movie or TV PK character again, which is what I'm trying to avoid. Your edit. 5Q5 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on Carrie or Resurrection (1980 film) makes their notability immediately apparent - the Oscars are prominently noted. I don't think we require written justifications of notability for every item mentioned, especially when the article links suffice. Also, since telekinesis was only one of Spacek and Burtsyn's character's supernatural abilities, we encourage original research interpretations of what's notable based on who thinks telekinesis was a feature of a number of Oscar winning characters in film history (e.g. Superboy, etc.), which I think we should avoid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Good job cleaning up the original research. This will be an improvement over the current section. If you want to work on expansion you could flesh the section out with pre-20th century references (any books or paintings feature it prominently?) and you could try to find an example video game for the last sentence. ThemFromSpace 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is my new proposed revision. As for adding a public domain painting, I had one of Jesus performing PK with the raising of Lazarusyears ago, but editors took it out because there was no specific reference to "psychokinesis." As for re-including a video game example, I say only if it is the most famous example that can be found; otherwise, here we go again, everyone will be adding their favorites. 5Q5 (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

PROPOSED REVISION #2:

Psychokinesis has been an aspect in movies, television, computer games, literature, and other forms of popular culture. An early example is the 1952 novella Telek by Jack Vance. Notable portrayals of psychokinetic characters include Sissy Spacek as a troubled high school student in the 1976 film Carrie, based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, and Ellen Burstyn in 1980's Resurrection. 1 2 Psychokinesis is also commonly used as a power in a large number of videogames and role playing games.

The whole purpose of shortening this section is to stop the ongoing problem of people adding their favorite movie or TV PK characters, of which there are hundreds. To do that we need to reference why Carrie (4 Oscar noms, incl Best Actress) and Resurrection (2 Oscar noms, incl Best Actress) are the ones chosen above all others. 5Q5 (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you have consensus (at least from people who bother to post on the Talk page) for making the proposed edits. Might as well go ahead and do it and point to Talk in your edit summary. Cheers - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Revision #2 has been posted in the article. However, once there I noticed Carrie had a brief description so I added "healer-themed film" to Resurrection. 5Q5 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

North Korea's Kim Jong-il - add to claimants?

Discuss: Should we add the late North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to the list of notable PK claimants? Apparently the official line was that he could control the weather. This is also mentioned, both with different references, in his Wiki bio and the North Korea article. I have also come up with these high quality supporting refs: MSNBC, Dec 22, 1011 "In life, he was extolled by North Korea's fawning media with feats like a miraculous ability to control the weather and several holes-in-one on the golf course. and The Telegraph Dec 28, 2011 "He reportedly spread the myth across North Korea that he could control the weather with his moods, as if by magic.". Probably other refs out there. I've seen some that say it is in his official biography and that North Koreans are taught it in school. We could also add his photo from his bio. I think it would be an interesting addition. Thoughts? 5Q5 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No point in adding his photo, since it's just a portrait, so I'm proposing just adding a sourced line to the list mentioning his name and above claim. 5Q5 (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw those news stories as well. There were many other such frivolous claims of Kim's "powers" e.g. he was golf prodigy, inventor of the hamburger, fashion taste-maker, etc. Good material for his bio article, but not appropriate to add to our articles on golf, hamburger, fashion, etc. ...or, I think, this one. However if you decide to add it, I will not lose any sleep over it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Even though it's my proposal, to be honest, I'd actually like to see a little more definitive source quote than the ones I gave above. Maybe his official autobiography is translated into English somewhere. If I have the time someday, I'll go looking online. If anyone else can locate a better reference in the meantime, please post it here so we can check it out. If there is ever a PKer who is maintream scientific community approved, then I think that would justify deleting the entire dubious claimants section. 5Q5 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

It's terrible. How about this? And shift the references into the body somehow. Mcewan (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Psychokinesis (from the Greek ψυχή, "psyche" (mind) and κίνησις, "kinesis", (movement)), is a term coined by publisher Henry Holt to refer to the influence of mind on an object that cannot be accounted for by the mediation of any known physical energy. Examples of psychokinesis could include distorting or moving an object, and influencing the output of a random number generator.

Most scientists believe that the existence of psychokinesis has not been convincingly demonstrated. A meta-analysis of 380 studies in 2006 found a "very small" effect which could possibly be explained by publication bias. PK experiments have historically been criticised for lack of proper controls and repeatability and some experiments have created illusions of PK where none exists as a result of the subject's prior belief in PK.

Some parapsychology researchers claim psychokinesis exists and deserves further study, including recent attempts to influence random number generators.

I made the following tweak to the intro (from history log): In intro, deleted "sometimes abbreviated" to just "abbreviated as PK and ... " and deleted the parenthetical phrase "(i.e. moving objects with the mind)" as being confusing and unneeded. It reads a little smoother now. I have been editing this article as a registered user since October 11, 2006, earlier as an unregistered editor and I can tell you that it has taken many years of consensus building with many believer and skeptical editors to arrive at the current opening section, so I'm not inclined to change it too much. You propose dropping the mention of telekinesis in the intro, but that is a major redirect to this article. You also want to change PK "to refer to the influence of mind on an object" but it also can also possibly affect time and other events. When "proof" comes along the article will have to undergo a dramatic rewrite and I hope to see you there. 5Q5 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes that is much better but still (necessarily) somewhat committee-designed. I too look forward to the rewrite when proof is found. Might be a while off yet though :). Mcewan (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdated, bias and needs severe revision

There are many problems with this article and I'll discuss a few that are problematic as an encyclopedia article. In the article, there are questions about whether or not it exists, but then makes statements about violating laws of physics or have a bias opinion that leads more towards an absolute. The second thing is that this article seems dated and requires a strong sense of revision. James Ramdi has had many individuals and groups, some very distinguished research organizations have been either declined their prize or ignored. Additionally, Speaking about James Randi is highly controversial as it's been suggested by many that he is only utilizing skepticism as a means to make more money. There's also a lack of documented evidence stating that it is in fact something that exists. There have been many universities, over a thousand that have published documentations that psionics or psychic abilities is indeed true to the given extent of their research. There's also a lot of controversy involving this because various news agencies have been caught stating differently than the results and evidence show that the research completed that were against the idea that some if not all humans may have psychic abilities are mostly if not all flawed. Again, this is very well documented. I mainly care to see that this article is revised into becoming a less bias and more scientific entry, rather than a "it doesn't exist but there are some people that say it does" kind of article. All of what I've been discussing can be Googled and found from reliable and well established research organizations and universities as well as independent researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.113.165 (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint that the article is perhaps biased toward the position of mainstream science, which refuses at present to accept the full-fledged existence of PK. The problem is that, like the bizarre concepts of string theory, the multiverse, etc., there are not enough famous (mediagenic) and respected scientists to go on the record to defend what seems to be confirming evidence of PK. This article has been the subject of numerous neutrality disputes over the years and what you see in the article now is the consensus of those disputes. Take a look at how the article looked five years ago in an edit of mine in the history log for August 20, 2007 and you can see how there was once more quotes from both sides. This article is about a controversial topic. Below is a quote from WP:FRINGE/PS. If you can find any recent material sourced from mainstream science backing PK, I think everyone who edits this article would appreciate seeing it posted here on the talk page first so we can evaluate if the article could be revised. Thanks for your input. 5Q5 (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy)." Source: WP:Fringe/PS

Consensus requested: Which language for article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am requesting a policy decision for this article as to whether it should be written in American English or British English. A number of UK-based editors have been gradually converting it to British English, changing spellings like "criticized" to "criticised" and moving periods to outside of end quotation marks (the latter may be allowed, see "No opinion" below). One unregistered UK editor recently added a flag to the top of the article indicating in that editor's opinion that the article needed copyediting for grammar, spelling, and style. The article was originally written and maintained in American English, so these conversions appear to violate WP:RETAIN. A language policy for this specific article will allow any editor to revert material contrary to the consensus language and avoid edit warring. The following allowed talk page straw poll to ascertain consensus is being conducted in accordance with WP:NOTVOTE.

Please state your preference opinion, American or British and add a reason.

• American, with an exception, because the term "psychokinesis" was coined by American-born researcher Henry Holt and first published in an American publication (book). "Telekinesis" was coined by a Russian who moved to Germany. There is no overriding relevance to Great Britain in the article. Exception: Retain British English in sourced quotations by British speakers, per WP:CONSISTENCY. 5Q5 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• American. Though I'm a Brit myself, I agree with 5Q5's reasoning. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• No opinion, but the "end quotation marks" should be moved to what you call "British", per WP:LQ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I did not know that. So, all articles are required to have British-style grammar with regard to certain punctuation marks even on clearly American topic articles. Personally, I do think it makes more sense to have a period always at the end of a sentence. I mean, period means period, right? But in the revolution of 1776 or whatever maybe the colonists decided to "be different." Oh, excuse me, that should "be different". Anyway, I was taught American grammar, so I think I'll excuse myself from period and comma corrections in the article so as not to make a mistake. As the originator, I am revising this poll, then, to be about American vs British spelling in the article. 5Q5 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• American per WP:RETAIN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Article is Biased

This article is obviously biased. I've added references to a few scientific research experiments which legitimately indicate PK activity. I'll add more later.
COice6 (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As I indicated in my response to a similar claim of bias in the first topic on this page, yes, I agree it looks that way. Wikipedia's policy, however, is that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and multiple sources on alleged positive evidence for a physics-changing claim such as psychokinesis. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The problem with using just studies by the pro-side is that these researchers often have conflicts of interest and are biased toward commercial exploitation of their alleged discoveries. The PEAR researchers are a perfect example in that regard. They formed a company called Psyleron, Inc. to market products based on their claimed positive results in RNG experiments. They have one or more patents. Other researchers making claims have books to sell. The intro to the article says that there are believers and non-believers. My position is that if you want to add claims of positive results in a stand-alone section, either add additional sources from reliable third parties outside of the paranormal world (mainsteam science magazines, websites, etc.) OR at the same time you post the positive-results material with just a single pro-reference, include a sourced rebuttal from mainsteam science/skeptics organization in order to avoid undue weight toward one side of the issue. See WP:UNDUE. Do research and then compose it all in a text file and then copy and paste it as one edit instead making many smaller edits. You could also post it here on the talk page first and seek consensus. 5Q5 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but that is exactly what I attempted to do. Can you explain to me why my "Foundations of Physics" journal article addition was removed by User:LuckyLouie (at 13:12)? I thought that the "Foundations of Physics" journal is a reliable mainstream publication.
COice6 (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Would that be the same Foundations of Physics that published the Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory and Tom Bearden's perpetual motion claims? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Those Foundations look a bit crumbled to me. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

COice6, I pasted the entire reference section in a text editor and then did a phrase search for "Foundations of Physics" and came up empty, so it would be a new source for the article and it looks like a good find. Seeing as how the journal has a physics Nobel laureate associated with it as editor-in-chief and others in the past on its editorial board, it definitely qualifies as a high-quality peer-reviewed source for Wikipedia content, even better than other references (like Dean Radin's book). The material of yours that was deleted by editor LuckyLouie is already covered and sourced in the article in other places, along with rebuttals by skeptics, so what you proposed to add is not controversial. I guess the problem was that, and I agree, being in a new subsection, you forgot to balance it with available opposing viewpoints. COice6, if you want to add your material below to the "PK experiment" subsection, I would support that, so long as the line I have added about the skeptics' position following your material is included. Other editors are free to tweak my line if they want.

5Q5 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It has been clearly established (by consensus, and in the real world) that Foundations of Physics is not a reliable source. It's possible that the source could be allowed if all the authors are reputable experts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

COice6, Again I ask, would that be the same Foundations of Physics that published the Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory and Tom Bearden's perpetual motion claims? If so, how can you claim that Foundations of Physics is a reliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an argument I don't believe you can win. Foundations of Physics is cited as a source in over 1,000 Wikipedia science articles (found by way of a Google search). Below is just a sampling. There were so many scientist biography articles I had to stop adding them early on. The "Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory" was retracted by the journal, as the WIkipedia article indicates.
Foundations of Physics cited in the folowing articles: John Stewart Bell (Northern Irish physicist, and the originator of Bell's theorem), Bell's spaceship paradox, Bell's theorem, Complementarity (physics), Bifurcation theory, Faraday constant, Free will theorem, Graviton, David Hestenes (American theoretical physicist), Basil Hiley (British quantum physicist ), Interpretations of quantum mechanics, Introduction to quantum mechanics, Language of mathematics, Many-worlds interpretation, Mathematical universe hypothesis, Matter wave, Measurement problem, Measurement in quantum mechanics, Non-equilibrium thermodynamics, Philosophy of mathematics, Philosophy of physics, Physical quantity, Constantin Piron (Belgian physicist), Principle of locality, Quantum Bayesianism, Quantum gate, Quantum logic, Quantum nonlocality, Quantum potential, Reality, Ruggero Santilli (Italian-American physicist), Speed of gravity, Max Tegmark (Swedish-American cosmologist), Temperature, Theory of everything, Timeline of quantum mechanics, Anton Zeilinger (Austrian quantum physicist), any many more.
5Q5 (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Google searches prove nothing. [1] Using the Wikipedia search facility, you will find the phrase "foundations of physics" in 223 pages [2] - not all references, and not all referring to the journal at all (it is a common enough phrase in other contexts). As to whether the journal should be used at all, I suspect it depends what it is being cited for - but Wikipedia certainly isn't bound by precedent, and if a source is challenged, it is up to the person citing it to demonstrate that it is a valid source for the material cited. And given the material under discussion here, it will need a strong argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@5Q5: Even if you were to find a gold-plated source citing that "person X has found replicable evidence for the existence of (thing that violates the laws of physics)" it would still fall under WP:REDFLAG, which is intended to prevent Wikipedia from publishing "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" as fact. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors, WP:REDFLAG is an alternative shortcut to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which I already agreed with as applying to this discussion in an earlier post above. I tried to find out online who was the Chief Editor and Managing Editor of Foundations of Physics in 1986 and 1989 when the two cited papers were published but I could not find the answer. Strange, they don't seem to want to share that information. The papers are available online for purchase through the publisher. What we do know is that neither the 1986 or 1989 paper was eventually retracted, not even to this day, so the journal apparently stands by the papers' contents as being acceptable. Prominent skeptics chose to respond in their own publications. The psychokinesis article on Wikipedia already includes both sides of the issue. The editor COice6, who hasn't yet replied further since starting this section, tried to add the same discussed material to a new dedicated subsection devoted to PK experiments and using a more credible source to referencing them than those already in the article (such as Dean Radin's own book). I have said that I would support inclusion but only if multiple sources are added OR if a mention of skeptical rebuttal is included, which I have proposed via an extra line in the box above. As I have indicated, the REG studies and rebuttals are already in the article. Maybe the problem is the wording that COice6 chose: "provide replicable evidence." I agree, that sounds very conclusive. My eyes did open wider a bit when I read that. Maybe the authors only said cautiously the evidence "suggests" the evidence is replicable in the actual papers and that's how the papers got through the review process. If so, then the references don't support what the line in the box above as COice6 wrote says. We should find out what's actually in those Foundations of Physics papers. I've been an editor on this article since 2006. No one has ever suggested a PK experiment section or subsection before. Hey, COice6, why don't you see if can find out if your sources support the material you want in the article? If not then perhaps you should propose a revised line. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to a previous comment.) Possibly Foundations of Physics is used as a reliable source in some Wikipedia articles, but looking at a random sample of the Wikipedia articles mentioned above, it was only used as a reliable source that a comment (from the paper) was made, not that it was reliable for the accuracy of the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My (5Q5's) final comments on this, expectantly. Physics Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft had an article published in the journal in 2008; famous quantum physicist David Bohm coauthored an article with another physicist that was published in 1982, the same decade as the two REG papers (1986, 1989). I am the editor who provided many of the references in the PK article and had to read of a lot, a lot of material in bookstores, libraries, and online over the years to find them, so I guess that's why I consider Foundations in Physics to be a higher quality source in comparison. Here is a critical skeptical review of the PEAR REG experimental results that appeared in Skeptical Inquirer in May/June 2006, available online at csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy. The Skeptical Inquirer article as I write this is not being used as a reference in this article. Personally, I don't hold much weight in the REG experiments as proof of PK. They seem to be focused on statistics, not single experiments, which either produce a positive result or not and are replicable by others or not. I was never one of the original contributors of the REG/RNG information in the PK article, so it's not my beat. My last words on this are that I will support Foundations of Physics as a quality source to reference any line in the article by any editor. A source is only supposed to be a source, not an endorsement of whether the material is accurate or not. The Flat Earth article has 146 cited sources. Lol! Until the (missing) editor COice6 can show that the proposed line is supported by the two sources, I say we do nothing and move on. I am. 5Q5 (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus requested on "thoughtography" material

The editor AndyTheGrump has started an edit war concerning the material in the box below, even as he is being considered for a block on the Administrator's Noticeboard for edit warring elsewhere (the link given may need updating when a decision is reached). Rather than flag the material or start a discussion here, he just deletes a line that has been in the article by way of consensus for years. I am not going to play the edit war game with him, so I am therefore seeking consensus from other editors at large as to whether the quoted line in the source is adequate. Joe Nickell, the skeptical author of the book is clearly defining what thoughtography is for his readers. He is not passing judgement on anyone's claim of that ability. The author, Nickell, is just providing a definition of the term. Do you agree that the cited source is sufficient?

5Q5 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No. You've used the source (Nickell) in a section of the article that intends to identify "Types" of PK but have ignored the context that the source places "thoughtography" in, which is actually a description of a fraud. Unless you want to add something about "thoughtography" being fraudulent, I suggest you find another source. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Nickell makes it entirely clear that he considers "thoughtography" to be hokum. It is a gross misrepresentation of the source to imply otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Re the claim "The editor AndyTheGrump has started an edit war", that is factually incorrect. 5Q5 made an edit. AndyTheGrump reverted it, which was proper vbehavior -- see WP:BRD. 5Q5 reverted, thus starting an edit war, which was wrong. AndyTheGrump then reverted, thus continuing an edit war, which was wrong. And now that you are discussing it (as you both should have done in the D of BRD) I am seeing comments about the other editor (bad),along with comments about article content and sourcing (good). You have both been around long enough to know better. Please discuss what the content of the article should be and whether there are sources for your preferred version, and please do so calmly, rationally, and without talking about other editors. In other words, more light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk)

I don't know if "thoughtography" is an independently established term or something that's only peculiar to Ted Serios, but in the interest of article comprehensiveness, I suggest you might use the Nickell source (along with other mainstream views from Terence Hines [3] [4] and Martin Gardner [5] [6] ) to add Serios and his thoughtography to the "Scientific view" section, within its correct context. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline:

• 18 September 2007 - (Note the 2007 date please.) The editor 5Q5 (me) adds the thoughtform and thoughtography material to the article, with four references. It has subsequently enjoyed over six years of consensus for inclusion in the article, reviewed by hundreds or thousands of other Wikipedia editors, some of whom during that time period deleted or moved some of the references or tweaked and split the material leaving the particular ending line in question about thoughtography without a reference in 2013.
• 20 November 2013 - Unregistered editor/possible sock puppet 109.153.178.192, making his or her second edit ever on Wikipedia and first and only edit on the PK article to date, deletes the line: "Thought images placed on film are described as thoughtography." without any explanation in the edit summary per WP:FIES or talk page. Perhaps it was an innocent test edit by a newbie or intentional vandalism/biased editing. Only that editor knows for certain.
• 20 November 2013 - 5Q5 discovers and restores the deleted line that had been in the article for over six years, and went further and researched and found a new reference for it that simply confirmed a neutral definition as recognized by a prominent skeptical author.
• 20 November 2013 - The editor AndyTheGrump, five minutes after 5Q5 restored the thoughtography line that had been supported by consensus in the article for over six years, reverted 5Q5's restoration of unregistered editor 109.153.178.192's unexplained test edit/vandalism deletion, along with 5Q5's new reference for it, thus beginning an edit war as 5Q5 tried a second restoration and AndyTheGrump another reversion supporting the unregistered editor's test edit/vandalism. Respectfully, if the editor had a problem with the new reference I used, he could have simply and without controversy flagged it with a better source needed {{better source}} or dubious – discuss {{Dubious}} and initiated a discussion on the talk page as to his reason why. It was not necessary to delete consensus-supported material just because there was an issue with a reference. I keep seeing WP:BRD being offered as a cause or defense of action. WP:BRD is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. It is an essay. Quote: "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." Unquote. . . . Ladies and gentlemen, I am seeking consensus here to restore a 6-year-plus consensus-proven basic mention of thoughtography in the article, while I am reading that you editors commenting so far appear to just have a problem with the new reference used to support the definiton of the term. Is that correct? Or are you editors saying thoughtography should not be mentioned in the article at all? . . . Editor LuckyLouie, your proposed book reference by Terrence Hines describes Ted Serios as a "phony psychic." Unless he was proven in a court of law to be such, that's too negative and biased a source for me to use anywhere (I don't believe he was genuine personally, but my opinion is irrelevant). The Martin Gardner book you also offer does not have the word "thoughtography" in it. Neither does the Hines book, for that matter. I have no interest in including Ted Serios in the claimant's section, but after I post this I will be adding his name to the See also list in the article. . . . Concluding, my actions here I believe demonstrate anti-vandalism monitoring on my part and to protectively restore the article from a newbie unregistered editor's unexplained deletion of 6-plus-year material and a subsequent registered editor's support of that unexplained deletion along with a new reference, rather than using established and less controversial flagging options available to express a concern over a reference issue. I also feel it is necessary to point out that as I write this, the editor AndyTheGrump has two recent edit warring complaints filed against him on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring by other editors, thus indicating a pattern of such activity. Useful flags to avoid conflicts can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

After looking around, I found Nensha, and oddly, the Nickell source has also been used there...similarly stripped of its critical context. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

5Q5, this talk page is for discussing article content. Please stay on topic. And cut out the crap about 'sockpuppetry' and 'vandalism' - there is no evidence whatsoever of either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic here has been about a registered editor repeatedly deleting material that has been in the article for over six years and another registered editor's attempt to restore it. Have any of you ever actually provided content to the PK article? It is very easy to sit back and watch others do all the hard work and then move in later to hack away and rack up edit counts. So here is a revised version in the box below. Both have the word "supposedly." For technical reasons because of the {{reflist}} template I was unable to get the reference to display unless I removed the reference from the earlier box above, but the reference text there is still in the page code.5Q5 (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you forgot the context again. You have ignored the bulk of what the reference says. Nickell uses the term in the first sentence followed by a detailed description of 'thoughtography' being hoaxed. I've helpfully restored some of the relevant parts:

(Sorry. I, too was unable to get this reference to display unless I removed 5Q5's earlier example ref box above, but it's still in the diffs.) LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a page number and quote to support the "explained as hoaxes" line so that a stand-alone 2nd reference can be created? Many editors I predict will object with a according to whom? {{whom?}} or need quotation to verify {{Request quotation|}} flag, and also an objection to a reference within a reference. The book isn't available for preview on books.google (probably because Gale is a major reference publisher) and all I can find is this information at Amazon:

Encyclopedia of Hoaxes
by Gordon Stein
Gale Group (1993)
ISBN 978-0810384149
5Q5 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have a copy of the Encyclopedia of Hoaxes in front of me, but if you're looking for confirmation in reliable sources that thoughtography has been explained as a hoax or trick, additional sources available are Nickell and Hines and also Gardner, as previously suggested. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been rethinking this. You see, here's the problem. Take a look at the Types section in the article. It has the unique characteristic of being just a list. Its appearance helps break up all the other sections of long text. It's easy on the eyes. If we start adding pro and con discussions there, then everyone will want the same for every ability listed and soon it will be just another bloated text section. Thoughtography needs to be mentioned just briefly as a sub-ability of Thoughtforming. All the other abilities are briefly mentioned. Here is the original line again: "Thought images placed on film are described as thoughtography." Earlier, the line read: "For thought images placed on film, see thoughtography." Those are pretty simple, neutral lines. Tell me which one is best, and if the Nickell reference is no good, what kind of reference are you hoping to see me propose? There is an unregistered editor who has been frequenting the article lately who has been flagging things requesting that the source include the word psychokinesis or telekinesis to be acceptable, to link the ability with PK. The Nickell reference did that and that's why I used it. 5Q5 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree that the article must be kept frozen in exactly the same format that it has been since you've attended it. Consider that there may be a better way to structure the "Types" section, for example. I notice the entries have been assembled from multiple sources and defined as actual special human abilities without any contextual attribution, unlike Mediumship, which makes it clear that these things are Spiritualist beliefs or part of a parapsychological glossary. Similarly, I think the Nensha article has some problems with lack of contextual attribution and ignoring critical views used in sources. I'll give this some further thought and listen for what others think, keeping in mind there is no deadline. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have flagged the Nensha article at top for additional citations needed. Apparently the word is real, but as part of a UK publisher's 1931 Japanese-to-English translation for a book title. As I explain in a post on the talk page there in the topic Nensha?, it is unclear yet (to me) whether Nensha specifically refers to a psychic impression on photographs or other objects and creatures as well, like maybe making a doll haunted. I would like to propose the following changes to the PK article:

• Change the status of the "Types" section to a subsection of "Terminology" where it more appropriately belongs, considering that the "Types" section has the phrase "umbrella term." I originated both sections, the "Types" section on January 25, 2007, as "Types of abilities - classification." Being in a terminology context, the sources there only need to confirm the existence of the term and definition in the lexicon of PK, not pro or con issues as to real or fake. That is the same policy at dictionary publishing houses. The Intelligence article (also a mind-related topic) has two examples of how the list could be further structured by any interested editor, either as a boxed table or continuing as a bulleted list. In the Intelligence article, the list is also about abilities.
• Put Thoughtography in the "See also" list and leave it there until such time that the Nensha article is improved and clarified as to its meaning.

These changes I am proposing would resolve this topic discussion as far as I'm concerned. Okay? 5Q5 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you won't get any objections to a list as long as there is adequate framing for it, such as Andy has added to the current one. Recent improvements have been made to Ted Serios and I've tried to fix up the Nensha article, although there seems to be some confusing overlap between fictional ideas/definitions used in Ring (Suzuki novel) and claims of psychic powers made in the real world. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Over the years, I have seen many tweaks and edit summary discussions concerning that opening line in the "Types" section, but there has been no opposition elevating to a talk page topic. Believe it or not, I like the new change that AndyTheGrump made ("abilities which are claimed to include" as opposed to "may include"). But I have seen this go back and forth over the years. Heh, heh. I will wait now to see another editor eventually come along and tweak it to their liking. . . . I wish to inform everyone that consensus was reached back in 2007 on the positive side that only sources confirming the existence of the umbrella terms are needed for the abilities listed. Please see Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive_4#.22Types_of_abilities_-_classification.22_References initiated by editor Verdatum on 27 Nov 2007. I am not going to make the above proposed changes until they have aired here for a few days. 5Q5 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can change. [7] And there have been multiple changes to Wikipedia policy and guidelines since then. Not that a discussion which seems to revolve almost entirely about the inclusion of psychokinetic powers supposedly possessed by fictional characters seems particularly relevant to the present discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

2007...yeah, I think things have changed since the days of Martinphi. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, great, another long post from me, sorry. Perhaps it's because in real life, I'm a professional writer with etymology (word origin) credentials and this particular topic is important to me. The purpose of the discussion in 2007 about the "Types" section was to set a referencing standard that required a source to refer to the ability listed as being under the umbrella of psychokinesis and that a source must be from a nonfiction work; in other words, you could not directly use a Stephen King novel like Carrie or Marvel comic book as a reference for telekinesis, but you could use a serious analysis book like The Physics of Superheroes. Now, on to something else. I am once again curious about your reasoning for rejecting my Joe Nickell reference. I highlighted and pasted the entire text from the official guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources into a .txt file and then did a word search for "context" as in your use of the phrase implying that I "ignored the context that the source places "thoughtography" in." I then searched for "relevant" and "relevance." I then did the same thing for the official guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Results: the words "context," "relevant," and "relevance" are not on any of the pages. Respectfully, can you please point to an official policy or guideline that you are referring to as your justification for the rejection? The "Terms" section is not the "Belief" section, not the "Scientific view" section, etc. It is strictly to establish that the abilities listed are in the lexicon under the greater term of PK and references there only need to prove that. Maybe there is some official policy or guideline out there, but I can't find it. I didn't bother to check essays or how-to guides (aka how-to essays), as they are unofficial and cannot be used to force an action. The still unexplained deleted line simply says, for terminological purposes, that thought images placed on film are described as thoughtography. The line in author Joe Nickell's book matches that description using similar language. It is part of the author's introduction for the reader so that they will understand the terminology being used as he then goes on to present his opinion about a particular claimant of the ability that he just defined. WP policy seems to merely state that a source must verify what is written in the article. For a reference used only in the "Terms" section, how has this not occurred using Nickell's definition of thoughtography? I could see your point if it was being used in other sections discussing the pros and cons of claimants or the alleged science, but not good enough just to document the existence of the term? Thanks. PS. the editor Martinphi has been the only one to date to give me a barnstar for my over seven years of hard work on this article. Unfortunately, since that 2007 award, he has been blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely for reasons I have not looked into. Perhaps if I had chosen a different article in the beginning, my luck would have been better and I would have had a less stressful existence on Wikipedia. Thanks, again. Now signing off. 5Q5 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Man Jess edits

Thanks to Mann Jess for their recent edits to the article as seen in this version. It's a much improved article that now conforms to WP:FRINGE policies. I've edited some of the photo captions to help bring them in line with policy, but in particular, I'm not sure "‪File:Telequinesis o Telequinesia.ogg‬" adds anything to the article, as it seems to portray some kind of pseudoscientific fantasy "where the influence (or energy) projected from the magician to the apples is represented by a light." LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Glad to see it was appreciated! I sort of agree about the ogg, but I could go either way. It does demonstrate the claim in a way that is difficult in just words. (Some action began in his mind, and then the apples levitated). On the other hand, its just an animation, and I'm sure we have better options of real video of "real" events. I removed it for now, but if anyone thinks better of it, feel free to put it back until we find a replacement.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I can no longer vouch for any of my references - Quitting article

As one of the hard-working, under-appreciated editors who has actually done contributory work on the psychokinesis article in the way of text and all the photographs over the past seven years and sourced a large number of accompanying references, due to the massive revisions done by the editor Jess (aka Mann jess) and supported without hesitation by the editor LuckyLouie, without considering seeking consensus first in consideration of all the other editors who have worked on it all those years, I can no longer verfify that the references in the article match its content. This article is finished as far as I'm concerned, has been taken over by biased editors, and I will no longer work on it, monitor it, or even archive its talk page as I have also done all those years (I expect this post to soon disappear in a vengeful archiving edit). If it were allowed, I would seek consensus to have every single contribution I have ever made to the article removed and push it back to the stone age of minimal content. Thank you for proving once again why some news organizations forbid the use of Wikipedia as a source due to its unreliability. My conratulations also to the many IP address sock puppets and organized closed-minded skeptic-gangs (and here) working this article. I am removing the bookmarks for the history logs of this article and talk page from my browser. Another professional writer and 15-year open-minded published member of a skeptics organization in the real world volunteering to try to improve Wikipedia bites the dust. Don't hesitate, add your insults and snide good riddance remarks below, perhaps via sock puppets to maintain hit and run anonymity. Good bye. 5Q5 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12