User:Perfectblue97/pnorm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Boy Scout Lane

Hey! I went ahead and responded to your request, but I did notice that you didn't follow the proceedure for the request listed on the page. Don't worry about it now, I went ahead and fixed it up; just wanted to let you know for the future. Oh, and I didn't mention this in the response, but I do believe that this article is VERY close to being ready to apply for good article status. Good job once again on it! --InShaneee 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New England Skeptical Society

You deleted the following from that article: ", the most prominent of which is Penn and Teller's Bullshit!"

This is not vandalism, as he did in fact appear on the show as an expert. It was their show on Ghost Hunting. References:

1. board referencing it, with Steven Novella confirming it 2. "On July 11th 2005, Penn & Teller’s Showtime series, Bullshit! (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do) aired an episode called “Ghostbusters” about the pseudoscience of ghost investigation. Steven Novella, host of the Skeptics’ Guide, was one of two featured scientists/skeptics on the show." from skepticsguide website (website of Steven Novella's podcast)"

I've seen the episode myself, but I can't seem to google a really good reference (the second one's okay though). I'll try to find another.

--Havermayer 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] land squid

What is a "real cryptid"? The majority of critters on that page are clearly not "real". The land squid is thrown around in popular culture from time to time, but I don't know exactly what its origin is. Did I pick the wrong page to include it? — coelacan talk — 19:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The land squid did not originate with The Future Is Wild which was a 2003 show. It dates back to at least 1998 in popular culture.[1] — coelacan talk — 23:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fellow skeptic

Even though we expressed very different opinions about the electrokinetic business, I just want to say that I like what I see on your user page. Wikipedia needs plenty of skeptics to fight the nonsense out there. I can't believe how many TV shows right now promote unconfirmed paranormal phenomena as reality. Every channel has one! Even the science channels set straight thinking to one side for the sake of ratings! So . . . regardless of circumstances, I'm always pleased to meet a fellow skeptic. Doczilla 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Evp1.png

It's a minor thing, but just so you know, the GNU doesn't allow you to specify 'conditions' of usage as you have on this image. --InShaneee 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Moulton Howe

The voice really is well below professional radio quality. That's an objective fact. I'm quite sure the radio producers cringe when they hear the overmodulated screech -- it's a tribute, I suppose, to the information she has to offer that they book her nonetheless. I don't go in for revert wars. El Ingles 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alleged CZ infoboxes

You're reportedly doing a grand job infoboxing everything that supposedly moves. Don't get RSI :) Totnesmartin 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (according to some reports)

[edit] Researcher infoboxes

That seems to have fixed the problem. Good work. (Emperor 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Natasha Demkina

Glad to see someone working on the Natasha Demkina article. It was a hotly contested article for quite a while, mainly because one of the principle players in the CSICOP/CSMMH "investigation" of her was directly editing the article - and he was quite the aggressive type..but now he's left Wikipedia, so it will hopefully be an easier article to get involved with. I just haven't had the stomach to continue working on it yet.  :) I did work with a few other editors on an expansion draft, which came under assault by the now-departed editor. It's longer than I intended because everyone kept wanting to add things...but feel free to check it out and see if there's anything you think might be of value. I may start editing Demkina again in a few months...but I'm not quite ready yet...

BTW, I think they left "gift" in because it cuts both ways, a "gift" for what, exactly? The version you edited was the one approved and written by the chief skeptic...it hasn't really been touched since that time... Dreadlocke ☥ 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty! You probably won't like my draft, heck even I don't like parts of it.... :) As you can see, we tried to address all the concerns about attributions and any a priori assumptions. It's a tough line to walk between the skeptics and the believers... :)
I haven't really thought of it before you mentioned it, but I guess I have two definitions of "gift"; one is what you describe, something given by someone else, the other is a notable capacity, talent, or endowment. I've managed to keep the two separate without even thinking about it! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to reading your version! I like your view about including the core paranormal belief, while not having "alleged" or "so-called" or even "claimed" every other sentence - especially since those words are to be avoided according to WP:WTA. I was attempting to make the article about a biography of a living person rather than a "scientific" article about her paranormal power. Anyway, I can't wait to read your version! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Your draft is starting to really shape up! Looking good! Dreadlocke ☥ 06:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Thanks, for your comment "hey, no peeking", I needed a good laugh! I promise, no more peeking until I get the go-ahead! Dreadlocke ☥

Hope you are having a happy holiday season! I took a bit of time off from Wikipedia for the holidays, so I just now saw your note about your Demkina draft. I'll take a look as soon as I get a chance, I'm sure it's looking great! And hopefully I can provide you with more sources. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Perfectblue97/Natasha Demkina

Hi, for your info, Demkina did not complain about lack of authentication for the medical conditions during the test, or even immediately after. So far as I am aware, neither she nor any member of her team ever even asked to see proof. The complaint about proof not being provided after the test came some time after her return to Russia. Regards, — BillC talk 13:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] probability

A person is presented with 7 questions and 7 answers. What are the odds of them correctly pairing off 4 of them?

perfectblue 09:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If all 5040 permutations of the seven answers are equally probable, then the answer is given in the article titled rencontres numbers as 70/5040 = 1/72 = 0.013888.... That's if you mean EXACTLY four. If you mean AT LEAST four, then it's a somewhat larger number: 23/1260 = 0.018253968.... Michael Hardy 20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Price

Hi Perfectblue 97, The Daily Express is running a feature on Harry Price. I have seen the image you have uploaded of him taken with a spirit in the background taken by William Hope. Is there any chance you could email to me a hi-res copy at: siobhain.furlong@express.co.uk I would be very grateful for your urgent help Many thanks in advance Siobhain Furlong Daily express features picture desk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.104.50 (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Natasha Demkina

It may have escaped your attention that I did not revert your changes. My criticism is not about content, it is about replacing a highly controversial article with a complete rewrite without any prior discussion on its talk page. You are asking others to tag questionable content and to explain the reasoning for deletions, but that is not what you did when you replaced the article. Regardless of the merits of the rewrite, this is a perfect method for getting people riled up. Rl 07:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep claiming that your changes have been discussed somewhere, but you have not provided any links to the pertinent discussions, nor have you offered any explanation for not having (or at least announcing) said discussions on the article talk page where they belong. Rl 08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see your version put into place, I see it's been attacked already - it's been a very contentious article. I think some editors are being a bit over-the-top on this, when after all, we're supposed to be bold! And the most contentious editor of all over this article has left Wikipedia. Sorry you're running into this trouble, I'll be back online later in the week and will see what I can do to help. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Perfectblue97. Please don't forget to use edit summaries to help your fellow editors track changes to articles. Thank you. Nick Graves 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Graves, don't forget to tag and bag. RV is not a valid motto.

perfectblue 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

Let's not try too hard. An objective presentation with minimal comment is the way to show it's nonsense. All that's needed is to remove any claim that it's generally accepted. DGG 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I may not have been clear. If we present what has taken place as reported by observers, and what people of different perspectives have said, I think the truth situation will be clear to a reader. (I privately assume that paranormal phenomena are nonsense, and that a neutral presentation will invariably show it. But i will give an objective presentation in any case. I may be wrong; if the UFOs land, I will know I was wrong.) I meant to differentiate myself from some of my over-enthusiastic fellow-unbelievers, who are willing to distort arguments and even data in order to accomplish the greater good of showing the absolute truth. I don't do that--in fact, they embarrass me.
Thus I can find myself able to work with believers in the paranormal, if they think analogously. They may be willing to present the matter objectively, and lay out the arguments fairly, under their secure assumption that it will demonstrate what they know to be true. On the other hand, they too may be over enthusiastic, and distort. I can deal with that--I do not refute, I ignore and present the facts. The people I cannot deal with are the ones of my own side who distort. ( I usually try to convince they to keep quiet on grounds of expediency) I think you will know whom I include in this description.
I think we basically agree, judging by your user page, which I have just seen. (As an aside, I too have heard such noises as we've been discussing. They tended to occur in the early morning, they took the form of semi-intelligible radio stations, and they correlated with recent ethanol consumption. I have no intentions to say this on the talk page.) I assume the readers are not fools, but perhaps uneducated, and they will recognize the truth, sooner or later. On my user p., I say "I do not try to convert my opponents. I try to convert their audience." My ultimate source for this is JS Mill. DGG 08:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demkina and the Center

Hi, so is there another place to put this information, [2] or is the opening paragraph the best location? Do you see any problem putting it "on the same line" as the University? Seems like a specious argument to me. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Very good point about her not giving up and going home. It looks like another editor has put the information on the Center back where it belongs, and the disputing editor has dropped from watching the page (and I presume editing it). Dreadlocke ☥ 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I've been reading your comments to other editors about the article, and I think you're very good at handling them. I should probably just keep my big mouth shut... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 08:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you planning on adding more of your sandbox version to the main article? Let me know in advance, and I'll try to help avoid any minefields...although you seem quite adept at that youself..:) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Summary of EVP

Hi, just to alert you to the discussion on the EVP page. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MacRae

I really liked how you expanded the summary I originated for Spiricom. I wonder if you might do the same for MacRae; it needs 3 or 4 more sentences to be useful, as MacRae is mentioned again and again on proponent websites and it appears that his work is thought of as highly significant. Providing a neutral view of his work might help head off some future edit wars. Although we differ on some points related to the paranormal, I find your editing to be generally even-handed and appropriate to this article, hence I am making this request. --- LuckyLouie 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good job, while it lasted. Tom Butler's back at the article making changes now. I seriously think this artcile is headed for arbitration. --- LuckyLouie 20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

User:Martinphi and I have come to a consensus agreement on the first two paragraphs of the summary, as it stands now:

  • Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is a term coined by Colin Smyth to describe speech or speech-like sounds of paranormal origin occurring on previously unused recording media. It was first reported by Raymond Bayless and popularized by Konstantin Raudive.[1][2][3] As with all paranormal phenomena, the existense of EVP is disputed. Some say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but others say they can be explained by such things as pareidolia or radio signals. [4]
  • EVP is currently defined by the paranormal research group AA-EVP as any "anomalous voices captured on any form of audio recording" [2] that is discovered upon playback, but was not detected at the time that the recording was made, and which does not appear to originate from any local source. [3] EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[5] They are normally in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.[2]

How can we get you "on board" for this agreement? Please advise. --- LuckyLouie 01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • "some say" - yeah...I don't like that either, for difgferent reasons, but I swallowed it. I think SA is gonna have issues with it too, but we'll cross that bridge later.
  • "My main concern though is that naming the AA-EVP ties the description to an individual group, which means that it can be disputed based on that group rather than on the description itself. I'd feel more comfortable if we used a general attribution to the paranormal community who believe many things, rather than to a group who believe a specific thing, or if we used somebody well known like Clark as a reference."

Sure, but if we change the attribution, shouldn't we modify the definition? We shouldn't quote the exact words of a defintion AA-EVP originated and then say it's from "the paranormal community" or somesuch euphemism to hide the fact that it's really the AA-EVP speaking, eh? Got any ideas? (Who is Clark?) --- LuckyLouie 15:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about: "EVP is currently defined by many in the paranormal community as..." (and then lose the quotation marks?). LuckyLouie 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that an UNattributed definition is perceived as the equivalent of "Wikipedia defines EVP as X (based on a citation in a footnote that most people won't read)". Not overtly stating that the definition comes from a source because the source is controversial seems very deceptive to me. Like an article on God saying "God is defined as the supreme being who lives in heaven" with the footnote citing the Roman Catholic catechism. So...we really need an overt attribution. ....how about "many paranormal groups and some researchers who study it" ? Got any more ideas? LuckyLouie 16:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
MacRae works for me since he is an active researcher who (according to his books) believes that EVP exists. But to include Baruss would make it sound as if he endorses EVP as being "(our definition)" based on one set of experiments he did which did not confirm that EVP exists. So how bout just MacRae? LuckyLouie 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
perfectblue 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think any defintion that begins with "according to..." implies direct endorsement by the persons named. Baruss is the wrong fit. Maybe his pre-experiment defintion of EVP was the same as MacRae, but his post-experiment definition of EVP certainly isn't. OK, how about "according to researchers who conducted their own independent studies on EVP....." (Bear in mind this attribution business is a big sticking point with SA and others, and if we can get something I can sell to them, we are home free...maybe) --- LuckyLouie 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
PS - if we can't reach agreement right away, no sweat. Take time to think about it. In any case, let's keep the friendly dialogue open. ---LuckyLouie 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I plugged in the Macrae name. Now I will go seek User:Zoe. --- LuckyLouie 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Problem Found! Whitespace

  • It is the Resume Section ... just remove it and you will see the white space problem is fixed! so we gotta fix this section! -nima baghaei 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • this is THE part of the coding that is causing the issue:
|-
{{#if:{{{Pjob|}}}|<tr><td>Paranormal Area:</td><td>{{{Pjob}}}</td></tr>}}
|-
{{#if:{{{Affiliates|}}}|<tr><td>Affiliates:</td><td>{{{Affiliates}}}</td></tr>}}

-nima baghaei 18:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespace problem fixed!

  • Woho! ok i fixed it! Cheers! (:O) -nima baghaei 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's paranormal?

Hi, I noticed you changed the sentence which said that all paranormal phenomena are disputed to saying that "all paranormal phenomena are not disputed, many are known to have been hoaxes, or have not been sufficiently researched for there to be a dispute".

But, if they are known to be hoaxes, or have been scientifically proved, they aren't paranormal anymore, are they? It's common on paranormal articles to say always. What say you? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Paranormal practicum

Hi again Perfectblue,

I've just started an essay where I'm trying to address some of the errors often committed on Paranormal pages mostly by super-skeptics. Dreadlocke reviewed it, and though we needed something like it. It is very rough still. I don't really know how people go about these things because I am relatively new to Wikipedia. But, if people wanted to collaborate, we might be able to save a whole lot of time explaining why, for instance, you don't' need to put "supposed" before every mention of a paranormal power. There are a lot of other points, and I see other people going over them just as often as I do. In fact it's so common that I was able to find this just now without really looking (from the Psychic talk page):

1. If psychics are people who have psychic ability, then the article needs to state that there are no known psychics. That's why I put in "claimed", which was taken out. 2. What randomness tests have proven psychic ability? Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC) I'll try to answer your first question: a psychic is a psychic. If a person doesn't have the psychic abilities described, then they aren't a psychic. There are people who claim to be psychics, those can be referred to as "claimed" or "claim to be" or "believed to be" - such as Sylvia Browne or John Edward, but a psychic is a person who has those powers; claims don't enter into it.

Anyway, these are the kinds of points I want to cover. Perhaps you could take a look at it, and if you think it is worth pursuing, maybe you could tell me how to get others on board. The paranormal project talk page? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what you just put on my talk page is good! I've added it here Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your own essay

No of course I wouldn't be offended if you do your own essay. It's just that there is a very well-organized and united front, which while laudable in its goals is likely to give rise on the fringes to edits which seek to discredit. I think equal organization is needed to keep negative results from occurring. I think the paranormal project needs to do something together. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you're a member of the rational skepticism project, but you are alos fair to the paranormal. That's one reason I asked you.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that when Wikipedia:Lead_section is followed, the summary is supposed to give a clear overview of the article. But, at the same time, many people often want to make half the summary into a refutation of the field. I like the creationism summary. It doesn't give doubt/skepticsm the main emphasis, but it does includes it.

[edit] Demkina information

An excellent analysis of the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation into Natasha Demkina is on this website: Natasha Demkina Summary Update. It is not considered a WP:RS, but it has a lot of good information on Natasha, the experiment and other related issues. An interesting section is the emails exchanged between the scientists and Natasha's agent: Natasha Demkina emails. I think it can be used as a "further reading" or "external link", but I don't believe it can pass muster for an actual reference. Interesting read, if nothing else! You may have seen it in my own draft, but just in case... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 09:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

I'm not certain that I quite agree with the disputing editors that including information on Bayesian Analysis from Mathworld constitutes Original Research and thus violates WP:NOR. The main purpose of NOR is to keep ediors from publishing their own original ideas or theories. Secondarily, the policy prohibits a "synthesis" of material. This would prohibit using the Mathworld information to refute the results or means used by CSICOP, but would not prohibit a short description (including some of the caveats) of Bayesian Analysis using the Mathworld site at a reference. There's no real synthesis going on in the latter situation. I'm on the fence about this one, but I guess I lean towards OR.

Mathworld doesn't mention Demkina or the experiment, but it doesn't have to - it mentions Bayesian Analysis, and so does the Demkina article. I don't think this constitutes original research. But, then again, perhaps we would want to avoid any hint of a potential synthesis. Perhaps it would be sufficient if we just make sure all the information from the mathworld site is in the linked Wikipedia article. What are your thoughts on this? Dreadlocke ☥ 09:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I'm off the fence and squarely on the NOT-OR side! Dreadlocke ☥ 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion of Criticism and response in parapsychology

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_and_response_in_parapsychology

Hi Perfectblue, it would be great to have you opinion on the above. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been advised to create a sandbox for the Criticism and response in parapsychology article. It's here, renamed to Controversy in parapsychology. I'm not sure if people want to edit under my user page, or edit the main article. But, if it's decided to edit the sandbox, It would be great to have your help. I won't be editing in the beginning, while I see what format people want to use etc. I'm putting this on several talk pages. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

Hi perfectblue, Is there more than one source, the one from the SPR, which is peer-reviewed, and which says the explanation of EVP is probably paranormal? (I mean the Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room from the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research). If there isn't it might be better to go for the most precise wording possible, because that's all that's going to be allowed. That's because I don't know if we'd win an arbcom or mediation which said that a "scientist" is not necessarily a person published in a peer-reviewed journal or someone with a degree.

For instance, I just had to change back an edit which changed "Experiments performed by some scientists have found no evidence of EVP,<ref name="Baruss"/> while others have concluded that the sounds are probably paranormal.<ref>http://www.skyelab.co.uk/review/bb.htm</ref><ref name="macRae1">{{cite journal | last = MacRae | first = Alexander | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Report of an Electronic Voice Phenomenon Experiment inside a Double-Screened Room | journal = Journal of the Society for Psychical Research | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = Society for Psychical Research | date = October 2005 | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }}</ref>

to

"Experiments performed by scientists have found no evidence of EVP.." Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok cool, there may be a problem: You say "The SPR is over 100 years old, and is affiliated with one of the worlds most renowned universities, and its journal is fully peer reviewed."
The current problem is that that journal article [3] says: "MacRae, A., (2003), 'A Means of Producing the Anomalous Speech Products Based on Electro-Dermal Activity', in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, (date TBA) 2003" and Milo H Minderbinder and I don't know whether it was actually published.
See the discussion under the heading "NPOV", and the discussion here. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it really was published. Need to tell people that on the EVP page. What do you think of the current debate about making it more about culture? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Play

come play Sandbox on parapsychology as a science. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But we have to muster all facts. The reason for this is that we need in some articles to cite parapsychology as a science, or to cite the consensus in the field. What this is about, is prep for arbitration. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Perfectblue, I have no question myself that it is a science. But you should look at the Psychic talk page. We need to get this decided as a matter of policy on Wikipedia. OK, if you think that all we need to say to ArbCom is "it's a member of the AAAS", you may be right. But before I go all that way, I want to have thought of all angles, because the pseudoskeptics will run roughshod over us if we don't win. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all you ideas on parapsychology as a science. I wish I could get to a library, but I'm too far out in the country. I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Wikipedia, because I keep getting stuff from people who say, it is not a science, there is absolutely nothing to this. I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP mess

That EVP article is a horrid mess, I cannot believe the lengths the so-called "skeptical" side will go to in order to try and completely discredit every single bit of it. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/r/User%7EPerfectblue97_pnorm_ed6b.html"