Category talk:Psychics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This non-article page falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating.

Contents 1 Change name? 2 This seems like Skeptical Activism to me and a POV action 3 What purpose does such a change serve? 4 Name Change: Opposed

[edit] Change name?

Could we rename this category to (perhaps) Purported Psychics? The present title presumes such things exist. --Billpg 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaning towords Claimed Psychics. Any thoughts or objections? I'll do a rename in a few days if no-one else comments. --Billpg 10:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The name seems fair as it is, the category states 'This category contains articles about purported psychics', so there should be no confusion. There is also the other level to this, that there is such a thing as a 'psychic' in the sense of the profession, whether you consider psi valid or not. IMHO it can become unworkable to make every category include a 'qualifying' word like 'claimed', 'purported' or 'unproven'. Best wishes - Solar 11:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the definition of "Psychic" imply psychic abilities? I do not possess surgical skills, yet if I were to claim to be a surgeon, it would not make me one. The existance of people with genuine surgical skills (and other professions) can be verified, so I would not advocate adding 'Claimed' to other professional categories. (Unless we get into Descartes argument that you can't really prove anything, but that's a whole can of worms which would render everything in wikipedia hypothetical.)

Anyway, since my proposal is no longer un-opposed, I'll hold off performing the rename until there is some sort of consensus. --Billpg 12:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A consensus sounds like a very good idea. - Solar 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This seems like Skeptical Activism to me and a POV action

DISAGREE STRONGLY: As much as I understand the reasoning behind this suggestion, I feel that it is not appropriate. The mere addition of the word PURPORTED could be seen as a POV comment on all such individuals who are the subject of articles. It isn't our job as editors to throw that kind of blanket judgement on an entire category. No, we don't know if ESP and Psi powers really exist but wehre would this kind of thing end? Some people don't believe we ever went to the Moon. Would we allow them to change an article on Moon landing to Purported Moon landing? No, we would not. I am what I consider to be a reasonable skeptic myself but I see this as Skeptical Activism and as such, innapropriate. Wikipedia suffers from constant subtle activisim of this sort from both believers and skeptics alike. To affect this change would be throwing gasoline on the fire. Please step back and think about this a little. Your disbelief in their alleged Psychic powers is perfectly acceptible but it IS a POV. Do not seek to enforce it as a rule. This is not simply a matter of what is true and what is not, what is provable and what cannot be proven. It's a matter of what is common usage. We commonly refer to people who make these claims of special powers as Psychics, not Purported Psychics. The general public hearing the term Psychic applies to it whatever they personally believe to be true. They don't need you or us to remind them that the person is only purported to be a Psychic. That is to be covered in the body of the article. Again, I am not a believer. I simply dislike covert POV activism, which this smacks of.Lisapollison 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted my above post to it's original edit. The responder, user Billpg, cut it up to make it appear that we were having a tit for tat argument with me replying to him. This never took place. I posted ONCE. Do not chop up my post again. I want my statment to be read as a whole. This is not email. If you wish to respond to each statemn ent, quote me but do not alter my original post again. It is bad wikipedia ettiquette. I removed any paragraph breaks to prevent this fake debate thing from happening again. Sorry if it makes it harder to read. if your want to debate me, fine. Just do it honestly and without vandalism.Lisapollison 14:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your original message was in separate paragraphs, each making separate points. I made my responses to each paragraph without changing them, only copying the timestamp after each one on a separate line. I did not delete your words nor did I change them. Maybe I misunderstood protocol, and if so I appologise for that, but I must strongly dispute the charge of vandalism or dishonesty. --Billpg 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

His responses unedited: Lisapollison 14:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted sentences of what I feel is the main point of each individual paragraph that I was responding to. I have also sorted my responses back into their original order. See [1] for my response in full context. --Billpg 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would we allow them to change an article on Moon landing to Purported Moon landing? No, we would not.

The difference here is that the moon landings are verifiable. (They left a mirror up there. They are still alive to talk about it.) --Billpg 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a POV name would be Category:Fraudulent Psychics, which I am not suggesting. My current preference is for Claimed, which is much more neutral. I am open to suggestions for alternatives. --Billpg 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your disbelief in their alleged Psychic powers is perfectly acceptible but it IS a POV. Do not seek to enforce it as a rule.

Problem is, the statement that Phychics exist, implied by the category name, is also a POV. (The definition of the word notwithstanding, see below.) Both statements "Psychics exist" and "Psychics do not exist" are both unverifiable statements and (I think) fail WP:VERIFY. (Unless someone actually goes and wins James Randi's million dollars any time soon.) --Billpg 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The general public hearing the term Psychic applies to it whatever they personally believe to be true.

If that's the definition of "Psychic" is "One who claims to possess psychic abilities" rather than "One who possesses psychic abilities" then the present category title is correct. I disagree with that, but I'm only one person. As I said above, I'm not going to go changing anything until there is a consensus. --Billpg 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What purpose does such a change serve?

Billpg, I feel that this is a question that needs to be asked. Inherent in your proposal seems to be the notion that you, or we, as wikipedians, have assumed a responsibility to warn people about the Purported Psychics or Claimed Psychics. Can you not see that further defining the class of people who self-identify or who are collectively identified as Psychics by the public is in and of itself Skeptical Activism? I feel that the proposed change is pointless and a bad precedent. If your wish is to ensure NPOV in an article on any given psychic, you can easily do so by quoting sources that debunk them or dispute their claims. Another question is if we went with your proposal, by what standard would you allow a person be listed as a Psychic as opposed to a Purported Psychic? Would we then call such people Genuine Psychics? It's a can of worms that shouldn't be opened. If your intent is to create balance in such articles, you can do so by adding appropriate documentatiom so long as it isn't original research. That would be productive and I would support it so long as it wasn't in violation of Wikipedian procecdure. We have had problems with Skeptics adding their own research to articles when the proper procedure is to quote the source and link to it.

If there were some means of certifying Psychics such as they register with a governmental body or obtain a degree, then it would be appropriate to further define the category the way you propose. For example, Ralph Rene's article use to call him a self-taught Physicist a claim to which I objected. I objected because he never held a job as a Physicist, never published in any journals devoted to Physics, nor did he ever obtain a degree in any field let alone Physics. Had he been someone who lived in a time before such degrees were conferred or had he actually contributed to the modern field, I wouldn not have objected to his labeling hismelf a Self-taught Physicist.. I did not ask, however, that he be called a purported Physicist since that would have been POV. Unfortunately, the only way our society defines Psychics is by their own claims. Therefore, any attempt to separate the con artists from the folks with real powers would lead us down a winding path of arguments as to what constitutes proof of powers. When dealing with topics that border on belief systems and religion, you need to tread lightly. Belief in Psychics is, for many people, a matter of spirituality. Why don't we just avoid the whole mess and leave the category as is? I ask again, what purpose is served by the proposed change? Lisapollison 00:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Billpg, I feel that this is a question..."

I'd feel that someone could reasonably be called a Psychic if they can demonstrate psychic skills. For example, I claim to be a software engineer. Which that alone, I can be reasonably labelled a "Claimed Software Engineer". However, I can demonstrate this skill by engineering some software allowing me the title of "Software Engineer". --Billpg 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"If there were some means..."

As I said before, it would really come down to what the definition of "Psychic" is. I've offered my own definition, but I am only one person and Wikipedia is not my website. --Billpg 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I hear ya now. However, you highlight the very reason why such a change isn't feasible. Neither your definition nor mine mean anything unless they mesh with the majority of readers definition of a Psychic. I still feel we should just leave this one alone, but I appreciate you continuing the discussion. It got me to thinking aout a lot of self-procalimed labels. For example, that goofy John Basedow exercise guru who refers to himself as a Fitness Celebrity. He wasn't a Fitness Celebrity until he started uying adveritsing time proclaiming himself but now his face is familiar and lots of people have his tapes. It's a self-fulfilling kind of claim. My take is that if it's something that requires faith in something, we should just leave it alone. Much as we might want proof of their claim, we just aren't gonna get it. Do you concur?Lisapollison

[edit] Name Change: Opposed

"adj : commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds" - WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

To label every psychics "inconclusive" would be fairly POV. This category is meant to be all-inclusive. In the event that a psychic is proven (as honest or a fraud) it would no-longer qualify for this category. Just using the word "psychics" is much more inclusive. ---J.S (t|c) 16:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)