From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Sources? Bias?

Where is all this information coming from, if not the sources listed at the end of the article? Seems like this is primarily non-peer-reviewed information, into which bias has been added to make the technique seem more factual than the lack of quality information suggests. Indeed, the authors of those sources cite... their own work to prove their own points.

Also, I added the npov tag because there are history edits that specifically added bias to the page.

Chieftain 01:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read The Men Who Stare at Goats ? Read any of Joe McMoneagles work? Read Buchanan's book? If not, I don't quite see the point. This may surprise you, but in history, much of the information cited and from which history derives, is in the form of personal eyewitness accounts of events. This is called a primary source. What historians do is sift these, take what is known, and weed out the misinformation, to provide e a balanced narrative. You misunderstand the nature of history, if you think it can be boiled down to a series of repeatable, peer reviewed, statistically significant experiments. If you want to flag any part of the text, I'll set out where the information comes from. But line by line referencing makes for pretty dull reading and is not accepted practice in any history department I ever worked at........... Timharwoodx 10:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem was largely fixed since the time I flagged it by the addition of sources beyond... www.biomindsuperpowers.com. I have no problem with history and historical methods--though patronization is unappreciated. I wasn't looking for experiments, as such, but something better than a purely internet sourcelist on what is otherwise a somewhat esoteric and easily manipulated topic. I definitely think the work you've done, Tim, is well put together. I'm going to remove the tag, since the article seems to be better referenced now. Chieftain 03:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just used to multiple rounds of arguments about whether RV should be in the WIKI. All these sorts of things have been up for deletion several times over. My point has always been the government admits it spent millions of dollars on it, multiple biographies have emerged, clearly Stargate was a real project, run by real people, and such is covered under 'history.' I tried to focus what I wrote on the persons, background, rather than making claims for the accuracy of what was undertaken. If the article said RV was proved to be 80% accurate under Stargate, I would agree that would be grounds for dispute about the neutrality. Timharwoodx 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Chieftain

It behooves anyone writing an earnest attempt to describe a purported paranormal phenomenon to exercise a healthy dose of skepticism. Regrettably, I see little of that here. Contrast the content and writing style of this article with other ones on wikipedia for, say, the Philadelphia Experiment or Mesoamerican crystalline skulls. - MF