User talk:Annalisa Ventola/Sandbox

testing

Continents

Listing researchers on each continent is probably unnecessary, it makes more sense to just list the most notable ones (which will probably be mentioned in the article already anyway). --Milo H Minderbinder 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the content suggestions, you'll see that I am not suggesting that people 'list researchers'(there are too many to name). Rather, they will be discussing the major university labs and peer-reviewed journals. The general picture of parapsychology varies from continent to continent (and even country to country, but there is no need to go into that level of detail in a summary). Researchers receive varying levels of support from their local governments, and this has an effect on the field. For example, there is more institutional support for parapsychologists in Europe than there is for North America. The kinds of parapsychology research done is South America is much different from the research being done in North America, etc. The anthropology article found it notable to distinguish types of anthropological research according to locale. I see no reason why the parapsychology article shouldn't do the same.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If the field varies in different parts of the world, that difference can probably be summarized in a paragraph. Articles should be encyclopedic and explain the subject - breaking it down by continent doesn't seem that useful to the reader, particularly if it gets into lists (which I don't see in articles like physics). I don't know if you want to necessarily want to use Anthropology as a reference article since it may not be the best comparison (since the field itself has a geographical component) and because it just might not be a good enough article to use as a role model. Wikipedia has many featured articles, I'd recommending looking at some of those for models to emulate. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not advocating the use of lists in these sections. The geographical breakdown in this outline exists so that the article can maintain a narrative flow. Many anthropologists study parapsychological topics, so I don't think that the comparison is unwarranted. I've looked at several featured articles here at Wikipedia, but I do plan to look at more. In the meantime, perhaps it would be best to reserve a discussion of whether or not this section is useful to readers for after some content has been provided?--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deception

I've had a stab at this, and put in specific refs, temporarily, in same section. I like the proposed article layout; the existing one is a bit of a nightmare...Rikstar 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, Rikstar. You are certainly taking this in the direction that I imagined, but I would like to suggest a few edits. I'd spoken with one of the parapsychologists involved with Project Alpha, and his side of the story was that his colleagues were starting to suspect that those young men were deceiving them just before Randi broke the story. In other words, the young magicians knew that they were about to be outed, so they acted first. Hindsight, is of course, 20/20, but I have no reason to suspect that this particular gentlemen was lying to me. That being said, I think that it would be more neutral to state that Randi's trainees were "reported to have deceived" the experimenters rather than "managed to have fooled."

When it comes to the Soal case, it should be mentioned that evidence of deception came from within the field.

I would also like to bring David Hume into the discussion. Are you familiar? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you feedback. I appreciate the circumstances of Project Alpha, but I feel your edits give the uninitiated reader the option to believe that there is a possibility that the McDonnell team were not fooled by the subjects they eventually chose to test (out of 300?). Given that researchers "were starting to suspect that those young men were deceiving them just before Randi broke the story", this implies that, for a very long time, nothing was suspected. This in turn implies that there was nothing 'alleged', 'supposed', etc. about the success of Project Alpha in "exposing poor experimental methods and credulity". I totally agree that, as in the main article, not every skeptical claim either, especially in these criticism sections, needs to be preceded with 'alleged', 'supposed', 'reportedly', etc. Nor should all such claims have to be qualified within these sections, unless there is strong evidence to cite. In which case the skeptical claim is not worthy of inclusion in the first place (we also run the risk of repeating those tiresome point-counterpoint debates). I would like to think (as someone yearning to believe in the paranormal) that well-referenced skeptical claims can stand unqualified and without reservations in these sections, but are openly or tacitly demolished, or rendered irrelevant, by the sheer weight of evidence embodied in the rest of this article. I'll have a think about Mr. Hume and keep you posted.Rikstar 08:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that it reads rather poorly at the moment (I did not make those edits) and we do need to find a way to state the facts without sounding apologetic no matter which section we're drafting. However, since this is an article about parapsychology, we do need to consider the other side of the story. First, the methods of testing psychic claiments are such that parapsychologists start informally with loose controls, and then gradually tighten the controls over time. And how often where these guys visiting the labs? Every day? Once a month? Four years of what? The testing of psychic claiments is, by its very nature, an involved and time consuming process. Second, the ethical guidelines of the PA state that researchers must be absolutely sure that participants are cheating (i.e. be able to demonstrate it) before making a public statement because of the effect that it might have on participants lives. And lastly, I think it is worth noting that no public statment or report was ever made by these researchers in support of the magicians, which makes it difficult to prove that anybody in fact was being 'fooled'. You ought to wonder why the story would be broken before such a report could be made, my guess is that Randi and his magician friends knew that there would never be one.

Still, the event is worth noting, simply because of the amount of press that it got and the effect that it had on the field. I'm not asking that we go into some point-counterpoint argument about the whole thing, because that is more than any causual reader at Wikipedia is asking for. However, if an interested reader were inspired to look into Project Alpha after reading about here, I should hope that they would be able to approach the literature with an open mind. So we should consider how it is being discussed here. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tinkered with these edits a little bit. And I hope that they read more smoothly. When you get a chance, let me know what you think. Feel free to tinker as well.

Regarding Hume, I remember reading a quote by him somewhere saying something to the effect of it being more likely that a man would lie or cheat, than that the laws of physics had been violated. The text is called On Miracles, I think. It's an interesting argument, because otherwise, calling a scientist a liar or a cheat would be considered an ad hominom attack. I thought it might be useful to note in this section, but you can take it or leave it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

APA/Harvard Style Referencing

I tried to start a disscussion about this at the Parapsychology Talk page and got very little response. But now I see people mixing up citation styles in my sandbox and this needs to be addressed. I'll be happy to discuss the pros and cons of changing systems, but for now all you need to know is this: parapsychologists (and psychologists) use APA style in their writing. If you look at other psychology articles at Wikipedia, the many of them use APA style. Therefore, we should too.

This is not a difficult system to use or learn. If you want to see examples of how it is used, look at psychology articles like Stress management, Humanistic psychology, or Apparitional experience. There is a brief guide at APA style, and the links they provide at the bottom of the page are also very good. Also, the APA system is virtually identical to the Harvard system, which is fully supported here at Wikipedia, so there are templates that we could make use of if need be.

I'm going to wait a few days for people to learn the ropes of APA/Harvard style references and I'll be willing to help, but by next weekend, I'm going to start deleting material that is not properly referenced. I hope that editors will look into this, because some of this material is very good, and I would like for it to stay. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the APA style and if it can be used here, I say go for it. The only thing I wanted to point out is that it doesn't appear to be the most commonly used format in Wikipedia articles, so it may be difficult to maintain. Not everyone reads the talk pages. So what you'll probably get is a lot of people editing and not using the right format, and someone having to come in and change their sources to make them right.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 05:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I said the same thing by email (and also said that ref tags are more robust over time and given the changes articles undergo). I think Annalisa is committed to helping keep this format by editing other's work. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the notion that other WP editors may want to use a reference format that has links. Reference format is determined by consensus, so if the consensus is to use one of the more commonly used ref formats, that's what will happen. Particularly when there's already an existing article that has already established a citation format. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by a reference format that has links? There are templates for Harvard referencing that allow links if it's really that important. Our current reference list has 'links'.

I think that most people are willing to give the system a chance, at least while it's in the sandbox. If we find (after the article is done) that it really doesn't work out in the real world of Wikipedia, I'm not going to stand in the way of changing it back. I think the parenthetical system is useful for immediately seeing who is saying what while reading the article, especially given the level of controversy surrounding this field. And the fact that the system is standard in the physical and social sciences should be considered. Keep in mind that the existing article is not very stable, and there is a tag saying that the page does not adhere to one particular citation style, so I don't think that we could do much worse.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The APA style sure does look less cluttered though. I didn't think about the links. That's a good point. The difference between a research paper and an online article like Wikipedia is that people will want to be able to click to the resources.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you see the APA style as less cluttered than the usual number in a bracket? Obviously, there will be times where individual sentences need citations. I don't see how a name in parenthesis is less clutter. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mostly what I'm talking about is a readability thing and it only has to do with online articles. If you're reading a book and come across a footnote number, you keep right on reading. Online you get hit with a glaring blue number and your eyes naturally pause. That's all I'm talking about. It's a link color thing. Practically speaking there's nothing that can be done about my gripe : )

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, a bunch of numbers is clutter...names and dates actually provide information.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Neal, I agree that people will want to click to the resources, which is why I am linking to them in the references lists as much as possible. And if the APA system didn't support the referencing of electronic sources, I wouldn't use it at all. There is a template that will allow clicking to the sources. I'm really not sure how to use it yet, but there is information here (scroll down to templates).--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa has invited my opinion so here goes... APA/Harvard is cleaner, but would be going against the WP tide and could wind-up being a maintenance nightmare. AD 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to put this in the Citations Revisted section because I haven't made up my mind. But I wanted to point out another drawback to the more formal style of citing... page numbers. As one that doesn't have a huge library at my disposal or the time to read all the books, I'm often saying what someone else said a book said (going on faith that it's quoted accurately). If they don't include the page numbers, I have no idea how to find that. If I'm pulling info from another Wikipedia article into this one, I'm stuck with whatever information is in their citations. It's a bit rough and I don't have a solution other than to go with the informal cites. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Laboratories, organizations and peer-reviewed journals

Much better! Thank you. I find this title more informative and useful than the Status of the Field title. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pics good

If people can start thinking of appropriate pictures to use in the article, that'd be cool. Parapsychologists doing experiments, ganzfeld pic, noted parapsychologist mugshots, etc. Articles without pics are boring : ) --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Source Material

I see a lot of referencing to Alcock material from 1981. I read an excellent article by him the other day that came from a peer-reviewed journal in 2003. Here is a link to the pdf for those who might interested. It might be good to update some of these sources. You might also notice that he's not calling parapsychology a pseudoscience, in fact, he's saying that parapsychologists and mainstream scientists are "in the same camp."

Also, if we don't want to rely entirely on Dean Radin's books for the section titled "Parapsychological responses to criticism", this chapter in Harvey Irwin's book might be useful. If you use it, just use (Irwin & Watt 2007). I've got it in the references section. This might be a good alternative because it's a secondary source. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation Styles: Revisted

I don't think we can go on revamping the parapsychology article without some level of consensus on how to approach referencing. Wikipedia supports three different kinds of sourcing, embedded links, footnotes, and Harvard referencing. As far as I can tell, the current parapsychology article uses WP:FOOT, I am proposing that we switch to WP:HARV (similar to APA style). I am proposing this change because the later is the style of referencing used in the physical and social sciences, of which parapsychology is a part. It is my opinion that if we want to encourage scholarly contributions and scholarly discussion about parapsychological topics at Wikipedia, then a scholarly system of referencing must be employed.

Being an independent scholar who utilizes parenthetical referencing in my own research, I realize that I might be too close to the issue. This is why I am going to rest my case and request that we put it to a vote. Please look over the arguments above, look over the policy pages for both systems, and carefully consider which system you think would be best for this and related parapsychology articles at Wikipedia. After a couple of days, I will respectfully submit to whichever system the majority favors.

That being said, my vote is for Harvard referencing. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As you know I prefer WP:FOOT, becasuse it is the norm here, it can be easily transported between articles, is easy to maintain, etc., but I will go with whatever other editors decide. I am not really fussy about it, since Annalisa is the one going to maintain it! (= Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Since no other editors have weighed in on the matter, I'm going to just carry on with the Harvard referencing unless you have stronger objections. It seems to be working so far. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Adding litle responses..."

Ersby has posted (Criticism of parapsychology - discussion): "Whatever is going on with article, it can't stand the way it is presently. Adding litle responses to the end of each criticism isn't NPOV. It simply makes it look like all the arguments have been successfully rebutted by the paprapsychological community, which they haven't." This could apply here if we aren't careful and could undermine any integrity this article achieves.Rikstar 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I also think that the criticism section here is starting to get a little long. I initially imagined 1-2 paragraphs, simply stating the basic arguments and leaving it at that. I will probably do some paring down before the weekend is over.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of criticism to cover. It should be summarized, but it will take more than 2 paragraphs to cover it. By comparison, there should be very little response, if any. The parapsychologists view should be presented primarily or solely in the sections above the criticism section. As I've said previously, it goes like this: parapsychologists present -> critics critique -> done. The reader makes up their own mind. It's like a trial. Both sides present their case and at some point the trial ends and a jury goes off to decide the case. That's the neutral approach, in a nutshell it's us not trying to decide for them. The alternative is a debate that keeps going and going and going and isn't appropriate to Wikipedia.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The current criticism section currently has four paragraphs, and might be expanded in to 5-6 total. (When I said 1-2 paragraphs, I meant 1-2 paragraphs per heading.) I don't see any need for the response section to be more than 1-2 paragraphs. I wish we could do without the response section altogether, but the nature of some of the criticisms are such that they don't actually address the body of research presented in the article beforehand, but attack the fundemental existence of parapsychology as a science. If we didn't allow at least a paragraph or two for a response, then it would be necessary for the first half of the article to be a defense of parapsychology as a science. The current article already does that, and it's not working either. I'm not 100% happy with how the last section reads right now, but I think it's on the right track. What do you think? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo or not?

The methods of parapsychologists are regarded by some critics as a pseudoscience (Alcock, 1981; Beyerstein 1996; Stenger 2002).

We seem to have Alcock saying both that it is a pseudoscience, and that parapsychologists are in the scientific camp. ????????????? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else cited the 1981 source, so I haven't read it. If he indeed called parapsychology a pseudescience in 1981, then he must've changed his mind over the last 22 years, because he's changed his tune a little in the 2003 article. I took out the 1981 ref, simply because I think it would be confusing for the lay reader. I'm also assuming that it's better to go with newer sources in general, but correct me if I'm wrong. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NDE section

I don't know what to do with the refs. I couldn't even find one of them on the page.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

which article were you using? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I deleted that last paragraph because I'm trying to get away from long quotes. But if you accessed that article online, could I have the URL?--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagarizing it would be illegal. I took it from the near death experience article, and re-wrote or deleted.

Additions to the Outline

I did overlook NDE's (as well as OBEs) when creating this outline, so I'm probably to tweak it some more to fit them in. However, when it comes to experimental parapsychology, we can't describe every single experiment in the field because they are just too many, and we don't want to be accused of giving undue weight. I've chosen the 5 major experiments that are being replicated around the world. And I'm considering taking out my original section of presentiment studies, just because unlike the others, it hasn't recieved attention in a mainstream journal. Martin, I'm going to delete some of the additions to the outline, just because I think we already have too much. The experiments already described do have a precognitive component, so this aspect of parapsychology is not being ignored. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand things, you can't be accused of giving undue weight here. This is the article about a legitimate science. Thus, you can't give it undue weight. Only if this were a non-legetimate field of science, and were only part of another page, could it be undue weight. But I'm not an expert. But that's fine. I do think NDEs have got to be included, though. That is too big a deal to not mention.

Perhaps it would be good to have a section on how parapsychological experiments have indicated extraordinary things, such as presentiment, as part of an overview- and give links/sources.

Another thing- Wikipedia isn't paper. I get the feeling you're thinking of this as a single article. It doesn't need to be. We can include pretty much anything we want, all the experiments we want, and just split them off into child articles when the page is too big, retaining only a single paragraph, maybe 2 or 3 lines, in the main article. We could do an article on "Parapsychological experimental results." So you aren't actually limited this way. The items could be included with the understanding that they will eventually be their own articles. But this is not to object, either. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs only provide a sketch of the field and links to subpages. Remember, the goal is to stablize the parapsychology article, and to do that, it needs to be purely descriptive and as brief as possible. We need only to inform the reader about the breadth of the field, its most notable acheivments, and refer them elsewhere. Sure, we can put in anything we want, but then we would waste hours per day defending it on the talk pages.

I understand that the article can be expanded and reduced an infinite amount of times, but I would like to see the current outline filled in before extra headings are added or else it will never make it out of the sandbox.

Yes, parapsychology is a legitimate science, but it is also miniscule compared to physics or psychology. We need to keep that in perspective. I doubt that the editors of the psychology articles here find it necessary to discuss every interesting experiment done in their field. There is no reason for us to either. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Glad to have you onboard! Always nice to have an excellent writer join us. Thanks for your invitation to work with you on your sandbox parapsychology draft! I've been busy with my non-Wikipedia life lately and haven't had much time to edit, but I wanted to say hello and welcome! Dreadlocke ☥ 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mystery of Meta-analysis

In the literature of parapsychology the reader is supposed to trust the reported results of meta-analysis without question. To me this a great fallacy. Who has been informed well enough to understand all the different subjective choices that went into the creation of THIS meta-analysis? EACH meta-analysis needs to be explained showing its strengths and weaknesses. In my parapsycholgy text book and other books I own, I have never seen this even attempted. Each meta-analysis needs to be explained clear enough that the average 12 year-old can understand HOW these results were concluded. What data was used and why? The term meta-analysis is used like a buzz word. It is, as we used to say in my profession, "the Bible". I have not looked deeply into meta-analysis but from what I have seen it is not "the Bible". It is very subjective in structure.[1] A meta-analysis can be created to give you the pre-conceived results you desire. And this may not be seen by others. They never catch it. There is something wrong with that. In an interview Dean Radin made the curious remark of "using the the statistics that best support my experiment?" What the hell does that mean? I have been taught the definition of an expert is not only someone who knows and can tell you all about a subject. They also know and can tell you everything about that subject that is wrong. Here in meta-analysis, parapsychology falls flat on its face! User:Kazuba 22 Apr 2007

Bumped up

What can I do to get this moved over to the parapsychology article? That article is a complete mess and even what's already done here is a trememdous improvement. What's would be the basic information needed to do to make this a Version 1.0? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been tremendously busy the last few weeks, but lately have been making an effort to chip away at this bit by bit everyday. I was really hoping to get the whole thing done before moving it over. But some sections are pretty much done and could be moved over if the refs could be dealt with. The experiments methods section is done. I just got the last of the refs today. Notice the quality. 7 out of 8 of those refs come from mainstream science journals (and I think I could probably replace that one ref with something better if I had an afternoon to find the article)!

The criticism section is pretty much done too. I took your advice and decided not to give parapsychologists the last word. Before moving it over, I would see if anything really important from the present parapsychology article should be incorporated.

The history section is well on its way too. I would like to write the sections on Anomalous Psychology and Parapsychology Today myself, but if you felt so inspired, I could use some help on Government Psi Research. I'm really trying to keep things to secondary sources and mainstream journals as much as possible, so keep that in mind.

You might also try developing the sections on Europe and Asia using links from the top right sidebar at Public Parapsychology. I plan on asking for help for the sections on South America, Australia and Africa.

Anyhow, there's some ideas to get you started. I might make another attempt at getting some new blood here. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I haven't read through everything just yet, but just so that all the t's are crossed and i's dotted, I'm going to go through and highlight everything that I think is likely to be challenged. This is just my opinions based on my observations of disputes on Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that they will be challenged or that what I highlight will be the only items challenged. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of these highlighted issues are good, but I think that a number of them are going a little bit overboard. For instance, I don't think that we need to have criticism after every described experiment. It's like you said before, parapsychology states its case, the critics state their case, the end. I don't want this article to turn into another point-counterpoint debate.

I see you've highlighted the words 'statistically significant' a lot. If a statistically significant result is published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal like the British Journal of Psychology, Psychological Bulletin, or Nature, I don't see why we need to back down. There's been a lot of editors here demanding reliable sources....here they are.

On the section on anomalous experiences, I don't see why the discussion of studies of subjective experiences, published by the American Psychological Association, would be all that controversial. Please explain.

I opened the issue of referencing up to everybody here. I even invited conversation at the talk pages of the parapsychology article itself. Nobody had a strong vote against it, but I'd be happy to open up the issue for discussion again. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bare in mind, these aren't my objections, they're just what I predict will likely be disputed based on previous disputes. Let me go back and number them real quick and I'll add comments here (should have done that to begin with).

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been tackling these highlights, but I'll stop now so that you have a chance to explain yourself. Feel free to revert my deletions. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's alright, I think I can just summarize based on what you said. First, yes, they are overboard (again, not my disputes). Unfortunately these articles are edited by people who have a clear idea in mind that parapsychology should not be taken seriously at all, and will dispute anything and everything that suggests that it should be. It's messed up, totally, but I'm hoping for a stable article and if we can preempt that, that's my goal.

Point by counterpoint is definitely bad, but it's just not going to be stable to present the Ganzfeld experiment in one location, say it's yielded positive results, and then list the critiques of it in another location. Even if it's something like "See criticism section for controversy over the Ganzfeld procedure", that's better than nothing (might require more).

The "statistically significant" part I highlighted because the statistic methodology is one of the things criticized. A reader who believes it is criticized fairly will consider that to be pov.

Actually, to summarize, any positive result listed, whatever the journal it comes from, is likely to be challenged based on psi assumption alone. These instances where results are reported need to be handled delicately if the goal is stability.

In the section on "Anomalous psychology", I highlighted "psi-related experiences can occur" because a skeptical reader will see that as implying that something actually did occur and that it wasn't all in their head. Also the part where it says "research has shown that most individuals who endorse a belief in psi are well-adjusted, lack serious pathology, and are not intellectually deficient or lack critical abilities" needs a "according to psychological standards" or something because it is a subjective opinion without relating it to an objective set of standards that define what it is to be "well-adjusted".

I prefer the APA style, btw. The comment I left is that I don't think it's going to work over an extended period of time. Unless it's being watched heavily, it will likely end up with a mish-mash of styles down the road.

Again, not my objections. Left to me, I'd drop it in as-is. These are predictions only.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write those sections on experimental methods, and wasn't planning on launching into the results of these studies, but I also think that its notable that positive results have been published and dicussed in mainstream journals. It's too bad that this sort of thing has to be censored, but we do want the article to stabilize so perhaps there is a better way to handle it. Maybe we could just say that positive results have been published and debated in these journals, then cite the refs?

Regarding the anomalous psychology stuff, again, I didn't write that part...but are the skeptics here so hard-nosed that they can't tell the difference between discussing subjective experiences and objective reality?

APA style: I prefer it too, obviously. And I'm willing to check on the article daily. My hope is that it will stabilize and keeping up with the refs section won't be too big of a chore. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not censored, just needs disclaimers. I agree that it's notable and should be included, but all the readers coming from their various viewpoints need what I call "an out".

"What? Psychic abilities have been proven to be real? Why the heck haven't I heard about it? Oh, that's why. There's some disagreement over the methodology." That's their out. It should be included, but the reason everyone doesn't buy it needs to be in there too.

And yes, hard-nosed skeptics will want clarification on the subjective/objective thing. Some editors will take the entire article line by line (like I did) looking for stuff to complain about. Collaboration sometimes sucks.

A better way to put it is that if I published a paper in print, a critic might publish a response addressing my general ideas. In a wiki-document, they're able to do that in-line, line by line. With the highlights, I was anticipating what a critic might address. That's not to say they will, or that I'm right or anything, it's just what I anticipate. We could just copy it over as-is and see how it goes.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a good web source for the definition of "statistically significant" and "highly significant" if you want it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's no objections, I'm going to revert the sandbox back to my yellow markup (because I don't remember what all was marked up). Then, I'll make my suggested changes in green. If you anyone objects to my changes, they're the part in green. If you like them, you can delete the green tags. If you don't, reword it the way you like and change the color to yellow.

Let me know if it's completely crazy to do it this way.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just going to leave it as is. Going over my list of projects, I don't really have the time to wiki right now : ) I do encourge finishing this up and copying it over, however, though it might be appropriate to wait the few days/weeks for the ArbCom ruling. I'll come back when I have the time. Anybody needs anything, please drop me a note on my talk page or send me an email.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)