Talk:Early psi research at SRI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Early psi research at SRI article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Paranormal Portal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... PEER A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the project.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2007. The result of the discussion was merge.

Bearian (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Initial note 2 Nice Work 2.1 Repost of comment from article originator 3 Peer review request 4 Marge??

[edit] Initial note

This page relies solely upon publications in mainstream scientific journals. Please do not add material that is likely to result in problems with fringe sources or partisan data. Msbbb (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Work

You have done some fine research. The only problem with this entry is it uses only articles in journals as references. Books written by Targ and Puthoff, statements they have made, and other individuals and other parapsychologists supply more information. These sources do not always agree with each other, or with what you have here. It is not that simple. I wish it was. Kazuba (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repost of comment from article originator

(See User talk:Msbbb)

My original vision for this entry was specifically to summarise RV from the point of view of mainstream science. The early SRI studies are the only ones (that I could locate), which were reported and debated in such journals. They would therefore form the mainstream, peer-reviewed corpus of primary scientific sources. (Unfortunately, parapsychology journals do not yet fall into this category.) Other reference sources would seem to fall outside these sources, such as mass-market publications (eg Schnabel) or insider tell-alls (eg Smith, Atwater, etc). By relying so much upon all this material, the main RV entry jumbles up the whole military-CIA-espionage-conspiratorial angle with an orderly discussion of the basic scientific investigation of RV.

[edit] Peer review request

I've added a rqst for peer rvw here to reflect the corresponding request concerning the main RV page, which was recently made here by User:Maxwellordinary. With luck, the review will include the aggregate set of material in both articles. jxm 08:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marge??

Errrr, I believe the intention was to merge it into the remote viewing page, not the SRI page -- no?? jxm (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)