Talk:Ingo Swann
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth. |
|
Contents |
[edit] Seems Unfair
I have serious doubts about all of the psi readings discussed here, but that doesn't mean I think wiki should become so unbalanced in view point. This article is obviously one-sided and done in ill-taste. [[User:furbuggy[furbuggy]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.87.241 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is very one-sided. It fails to bring any sort of critical information on this person, only praising his supposed skills. --RoyalFool 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Excellent Article
I believe this is a well balanced article. I don't believe you have to include skepticism to have a harmonious balance in the paranormal world. Afterall, there are dozens of public figures both politicans and celebrities alike that solely "promote themselves and their good work" that do not present the opposing view. Vweston3554 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, the article is not just unbalanced, there are no links to scientific documents detailing the experiments done, or any other citations for that matter. As such, the article is one big piece of anecdotal evidence, which is certainly not encyclopaedic in nature. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about this subject and only got directed here in a discussion about paranormal activities, but I certainly support the comments made by RoyalFool and recommend that further work is done on the article.Triune 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks as though some of the possible explanations other than psychic powers are starting to appear in the article, along with some references. This can only be for the best.Triune 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- This process will be helped by active removal of detail unsupported by exact references. The people working here should know what to do, but if they don't, I'll come by and help. DGG (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category change
Categories were changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration decision on the paranormal, specifically Adequate framing and Cultural artifacts, though other sections may apply. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Since when do subjective (not to mention rhetorical) questions qualify as "encyclopaedic"?
I don't know what is the "bottom-line" (if there is one) of RV, but I do know a double standard when I see it...
How come this article's neutrality is not "disputed"?
Not to mention the basic rule of critical reporting (as opposed to personal commentary), which is: do not propose rhetorical questions, especially when there is nobody to answer them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.96.169 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Live Remote Viewing Demo
Check out the More Information: Video: Live Demonstration, See if you can spot the flaws, the con. They are most definitely there. If you can't recognize these juicy tidbits maybe you should keep away from this PSI stuff. You are just too easy. "Welcome to my web," said the spider to the fly. [1] Kazuba 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CIA involvement in remote viewing program
(this discussion was moved from User talk:kotra) -kotra (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ingo Swann is an artist and author, best known for his work as a founder of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)'s remote viewing program. Where is your citation for this? This is not true as far as I know. It is a bit of an exaggeration. Where is your documented source? To me it looks like when the CIA entered the picture Swann skated out. In fact he retired.Kazuba (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know that this is disputed. I thought it was commonly held that the remote viewing program was funded by the CIA from the beginning, but perhaps it isn't commonly held. I originally learned of this subject from [2], which admittedly makes wild claims, but seems reliable nonetheless. Also note Remote_viewing#Early_SRI_experiments, which makes the same claims about the CIA's sponsorship, and appears to be well-sourced. But regardless, I'll trim the "United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)'s" part from it, since that can be found out by going to Remote viewing or Stargate (or not, depending on whatever is the current state of those articles), which I will add into the sentence. To be clear though, it isn't disputed that Swann is best known for his work in remote viewing, correct?
- Also, if you don't mind, I would like to copy this discussion to Talk:Ingo Swann, so that others may contribute to the discussion if they wish. -kotra (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Ingo is best known as the Father of remote viewing. Sure. Go a head.Kazuba (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've changed the first sentence to "Ingo Swann is an artist and author, best known for his work as a co-creator of the discipline of remote viewing, specifically the Stargate Project." Feel free to change it if it's still disputed. -kotra (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio text
I removed the following text as a copyright violation because it's exactly the same as the text here (seventh paragraph):
In Penetration Swann describes his encounter with a live alien in a Los Angeles supermarket and confirms that ET civilization has been infiltrating the Earth in humanoid bodies. Swann's friends warn him: "There are alot of THEM, you know, and many of them are bio-androids...they realize that Earth psychics are their only enemies."
According to the website's disclaimer, "All materials contained in this Website are protected by copyright laws, and may not be reproduced, republished, distributed, transmitted, displayed, broadcast or otherwise exploited in any manner without the express prior written permission of Rense.com or the author, authors or sources of said materials." Therefore, I removed it in accordance with WP:COPYVIO. If this text is made into a quote from the website or paraphrased sufficiently, it should be ok to stay, but otherwise it must be removed. I'll remove it again now, but feel free to re-add it if it's been changed enough or I've overlooked something. -kotra (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- After edits by User:Kazuba and me, the text now reads:
-
In his autobiography Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy, Swann describes his work with individuals in the U.S. government who study extraterrestrials, and his experience with an extraterrestrial in a Los Angeles supermarket, concluding that extraterrestrials are living on earth in humanoid bodies. In the book, a friend warns him that there are many extraterrestrials, that many are "bio-androids", and that they are aware their only foes are earth psychics.
- I am still uncomfortable with its similarity to the text in [3], but apparently it is important to this article, and I would hesitate to change it any further without reading the book in question myself. So I'll leave it for now. -kotra (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Swann's brain activitry
User talk:Viniciusmauro Perhaps I am wrong, but I think you misread the Swann article. I edited it the way I understood it. Your call. Kazuba (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
