User talk:LetoDidac

September 2024

Hello, I'm Randomstaplers. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Parapsychology seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Staplers,

I appreciate your engagement regarding the parapsychology page, and I do understand your push-back. My attempt had been to bring the article to a more balanced position, but I can see now how my changes might be perceived to be unbalanced too.

My main concern with the page had been that it seemed surprisingly in favour of critics' opinion, and that it began with controversy and criticism before infact covering the findings of parapsychology experiments or discipline. As you may know, parapsychology studied have been challenged on many occasions, but the entire study of a subject in itself cannot be dismissed based on existing priors before the empirical evidence is judged by its merits (such a view would be more resemblant of religious dogma than true open scientific inquiry).

My main suggested change had been to include a reference at the beginning from a leading peer reviewed journal that assessed all the alleged evidence in favour of parapsychology findings, and to follow this with the rest of the wiki page still mostly unchanged, which is still mostly focused on the controversy and criticism.

In a further addition, I think it would be useful to at the very least cover the alleged findings of the discipline before covering the reception and criticism. (E.g. "The alleged findings of...")

Could I submit to you a suggestion that attempts to be more balanced, and you can tell me if it fits the bill?

If it is helpful I would be happy to work on summarising information from discussions within the APA forums, and other professional forums, that have discussed these findings (including the criticism). My concern is that the dominant views on the page are still misrepresenting the discussions presently occurring in a number of major psychology associations, and therefore their recent endorsements to establish new journals that will delve into studying the nature of consciousness.

Do you think it is reasonable to begin the article with a leading journal in favour, before covering the controversy and criticism? LetoDidac (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my suggestion posted in the talk page for parapsychology. Again, thank you for your feedback. LetoDidac (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]