Talk:Parapsychology/archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Great job on the merger 2 Recent Edits 3 "phenomena suggestive" vs. "the idea of" 4 Integrating " Laboratories, organizations and journals" into article as a whole 5 Integrating Laboratories, organizations and journals into Parapsychology today 6 Crit part of intro 7 See also 8 More Edits 9 Nealparr's changes 10 Third paragraph of intro, first sentence... 11 Good article nomination review 11.1 Changes made 11.2 Questions 12 FA Nomination 13 To Annalisa Ventola 14 reincarnation def 15 Main graphic 16 Logical Fallacy 17 What needs done? 18 Brought up at the FAC 18.1 Run article through Wikipedia:Peer review 18.2 Prune the large External link farm per WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT 18.3 Provide better definitions for "Critics" 18.4 Provide better definitions for "Critics" and "Researchers" 18.5 Use more citations 18.6 Improve statements which can become dated 19 AAAS

[edit] Great job on the merger

To everyone involved, great job! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, It seems to be going well. I've got a question about these articles...

Fraud in parapsychology, Research results in parapsychology, List of basic parapsychology topics, History of parapsychology, List of parapsychologists, Scientific investigation of telepathy.

I've merged a few, However many of them contain information that isn't redundant but is still in terrible formating and in sad shape. It would make more sense to merge them to this article, adding a few bits of the relevant information from whatever is left. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What we should do is link them {{main| Article}} for now, per WP:Summary and put "merge" tags on the appropriate ones. If there's no objections, I can handle that.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just nominated this for GA. While it seems to be worthy of FA, I think we need to wait and demonstrate stability. Receiving GA is a good step towards ensuring the FA is taken seriously. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the "Parapsychology" category to each of the articles listed here List of basic parapsychology topics, then I'm going to merge that page to the Category:Parapsychology. Someone help me, Start at the BOTTOM and add [[Category:Parapsychology]] to each page. I'm going from the top down. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. seems it's already done. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The same thing needs to be done with List of parapsychologists except for Category:Parapsychologists Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I linked the "fraud" and "research" sections to their main articles. "Scientific investigation of telepathy" really shouldn't redirect here as it's an offshoot of telepathy (or should be). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion both should just be redirected here. I can't imagine how either are salvageable as articles. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but isn't there a bit too much content (at least in the Fraud one) to simply merge? VanTucky ^(talk) 00:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but others may not. So you post a "merge" and let it take care of itself. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we've seen how that happens. The tags sit there for months with nothing progressing. I also don't want to see a big ugly "merger" tag on this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The traditional process is to tag it with merge. There may be other editors invested in those articles who don't know about the draft update here. That said, WP:BOLD. The can always revert it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care either way. But as I honestly don't have much of an interest in expanding a sole fraud article, I'll consent to a merge/redirect. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected them. If anyone thinks they deserve their own articles, let them work on them, I see no way to salvage either one of them and see numerous copyright, POV, grammar, redundancy, and Style problems. Nearly all of the relevant information in them exists in this article or it's sources. As you say, They can always revert it if they don't like the redirect. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

I think that nominating this article for GA status is waaaaay premature. There are a lot of grammatical issues and general readability issues that need to be addressed.

I have made edits to the first paragraph and first paragraph only. Feel free to work at it yourselves. Aside from adding the bit about the "phenomena suggestive of survival of consciousness", and the deletion of the last sentence, the paragraph reads roughly the same, but tighter and better I think.

I'm going to wait a while before I go onto the next paragraph. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "phenomena suggestive" vs. "the idea of"

I used the phrase "phenomena suggestive of survival of consciousness" to reflect the idea that many (if not most) parapsychologists think that alleged hauntings, poltergeists, reincarnation, etc... is explainable by the behaviors of living people rather than the dead. If you think that this phrase is somehow POV, perhaps we could arrive at a compromise. However, parapsychologists don't study "the idea of" of survival. Maybe there is a better way? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply saying "phenoma suggestive of" positively asserts that the phenoma they are studying is patently suggestive of life after death. It could say: "and other phenomena related to the concept of survival of..."? VanTucky ^(talk) 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What if we left off "phenomena suggestive of" altogether, and just left it be (kind of like we do with extrasensory perception and psychokinesis)? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Right now it says..

"a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine, studies phenomena suggestive of the survival of consciousness after bodily death"

Erasing that part in question would render it..

"a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine, studies phenomena."

Perhaps we should just change it to...

"a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine studies the possibility of survival of consciousness after bodily death."

Sounds Fair to me. BTW, It seems to be doubled. See below. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That last one is much better WDM. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you all are talking about the lead, I prefer VanTuky's edits. I prefer it say...

"is the study of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena, such as extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death."

Opposed to...

"is the study of evidence for paranormal psychological processes, such as extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and phenomena suggestive of the survival of consciousness after death.".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already changed it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Integrating " Laboratories, organizations and journals" into article as a whole

The "Laboratories, organizations and journals" is already partially integrated into the article. The first paragraph of "Laboratories, organizations and journals" is the same as the 2nd paragraph of "Parapsychology today". I suggest we integrate "Laboratories, organizations and journals" into the rest of the article and delete that section all together. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps it could go into the "Research" lead? VanTucky ^(talk) 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be integrated into the entire research section. Not just the first research paragraphs. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see this section stay, especially since I had plans to expand it in my original draft. But I'm willing to compromise since much of that material is present both in the article and the external links section. I would be even more agreeable if we could compromise by including a small list of links to the major journals in the external links section. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Si, eso es bueno. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead an delete/integrate the section, and I'll make a short links list and install it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's actually quite a long list. You should probably trim it down to about 5 links per section. 5 for "University research laboratories", 5 for "Independent research organizations" and 5 for "Journals". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but simply choosing a number seems kind of arbitrary. These are the major journals that are currently in press and written in English. Instead of limiting by numbers, we should think about limiting by criteria. What criteria do you think we should use to decide what gets put in the external links list and what does not?--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Integrating Laboratories, organizations and journals into Parapsychology today

I'm Integrating Laboratories, organizations and journals into Parapsychology today. I noticed that the former seems to be mostly dealing with labs and journals in North America. I cut a few out and integrated it into the flow of parapsychology today. I would like to see some more cut out and others added in from other parts of the world, other than North America. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is fine for now. I was going to complete similar sections for Europe, Asia, and Australia, but didn't get around to it before my sandbox version was installed. Perhaps I will suggest a few when we get around to fine-tuning 'Parapsychology Today'. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the material, even from the Parapsychology today section. Most of that material is present elsewhere in the article, including the external links and the references. Since I wrote the material originally, I doubt that anybody else will complain about it disappearing. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crit part of intro

... needs grammar cleanup. I'm not touching it myself. The third sentence (as of this timestamp) is a run-on sentence --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

I installed the following type of format on the paranormal article some time back to counter-act boring and useless bulleted see also lists. It's based on some of the see also's I've seen in FAs and resembles tagging.

Paranormal: Cryptozoology, Forteana, Ghosts, Mysticism, New Age, Occult, Paranormal fiction, Paranormal explanations for UFOs Parapsychology, Places thought to be haunted, Psychics, Supernatural, UFOs, UFO reported sightings
Skepticism: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Debunking, Hoaxes, James Randi, Prizes offered for paranormal proof, Skepticism
Science: Anomalous phenomena, Fringe science, Pseudoscience, Scientific method

Maybe something like this could be used here as well. There's potentially several related articles that would be appropriate to the see also section, and a format like this could include them without looking gawdy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Edits

My edits to the first paragraph seemed to go over fairly well, so I have moved onto the second paragraph. The newest changes are significant. I tried to keep the general idea of what was there already, but there have been a lot of changes. If you don't like something, either edit it yourself, talk to me about it, or both. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nealparr's changes

Instead of making a new section for each change in meaning I'd like to make (I don't see many at this point), I'm just going to lump them into a section.

• Plan to change "methods of parapsychologists as a pseudoscience" to "work of parapsychologists..."

Why? Many of the critics who feel this way are referring to the work in general as pseudoscience, or the conclusions as pseudoscience, or the ideas as pseudoscientific, etc. even when they think the methods themselves are scientific. Taken as a whole it's pseudoscientific, according to them. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds about right. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third paragraph of intro, first sentence...

...needs to be worked out here. Editing it too many times could look like an edit war when all we're trying to do is make the sentence clear. I personally am not into the word "sometimes" because it's not like Hyman and Alcock only criticize it some of the time. Something like "and others" needs to be there because of non-scientists like Randi. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination review

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, I found some issues that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of 18th July 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

• labs - informal, use laboratories
• been circulated in mainstream journals - "published" is better
• Parapsychology has met criticism by some in the scientific community, as well as others. - this sentence is unclear.
• Parapsychology was coined - a word is "coined" (although this phrase is a cliche) but a field is "started"
• The early membership of the SPR included philosophers, scholars, scientists, educators and politicians of the day - How could its membership have included people who had lived at other times? Cut "of the day"
• standard laboratory procedures for the testing of ESP evolved - A good general rule when writing about science is to avoid using technical terms to mean something distinct from their accepted meanings - "were developed" would be better.
• Rhine established and popularized the word "parapsychology," which Max Dessoir had coined over forty years earlier" - He didn't invent this word, so what is meant by him "establishing" it? How is this different from "popularize"?
• Levy's fraud was noted in Time Magazine (August 26, 1974) - Convert to a reference.
• Critics contend that meta-analysis is basically a post hoc data analysis and that evaluation of the methodological quality of a study after it is done and the results are known can create opportunity for biases to affect the analysis, and that various strategies, methods and criteria can be used, which can provide different outcomes and an opportunity for selecting outcomes which are consistent with the expectations of the analysist. - This sentence is over-long, contains multiple parentheses and thus becomes unclear. Break into two or three short, clear sentences.

2. Factually accurate?:

• the study of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena - I don't think this is true, might it be better to say the examination of possible paranormal psychological phenomena as this field does not limit itself to evidence for these phenomena, it also studies evidence against these phenomena.
• The scientific reality of parapsychological phenomena - There is no such thing as "scientific reality", scientists live in the same reality as everybody else! :)

3. Broad in coverage?: OK

4. Neutral point of view?:

• The cumulative data was interpreted by some researchers and The meta-analysis was comprised of 380 studies, which some researchers say - According to the NPOV policy, when making statements about groups, it is necessary to state how large these groups are in relation to the rest of the population in question. As no other interpretations are reported, is this the only significant opinion of these results?

• Looking at the article, this last point could be easily fixed by stating who you are citing for this opinion. Just a matter of noting who was the lead author of the paper that made this interpretation. Tim Vickers 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

5. Article stability? OK

6. Images?: OK

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Tim Vickers 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Tim! We'll get right on it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Nice work everybody. Tim Vickers 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you do FA reviews as well? or have any recommendations for that? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made

• Lab/Labs were changed to laboratory/laboratories. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Circulated changed to published. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Coined" fixed. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Third paragraph of intro clarified. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Deleted "of the day" VanTucky ^(talk) 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed established/popularized. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed problematic wording and changed to "The reality of parapsychological phenomena and the scientific validity of parapsychological research is a matter of continued criticism." from "The scientific reality of..." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Concerning Levy's mention in Time magazine, It was referenced from the source right above it. I just formated the source and moved it 1 sentence down to source the entire paragraph. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Broke up overly long sentence and converted into 2 sentences. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed the part about Rhine's adoption of the term parapsychology, bulleted under #1 above. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

When you say the sentence is unclear, what specifically about it needs clarifying? Is it the "others" part, or who the "some" in the scientific community is? VanTucky ^(talk) 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not specific and is poorly-worded, it might be better as just - "Parapsychology has been criticized by many scientists and psychologists." Tim Vickers 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

About the basic definition: I think something more like the study of paranormal psychological phenomena would be appropriate. Saying possible is imo unnecessary, as the intro goes on to point out that concrete evidence proving the phenomena exists has not occurred, and paranormal is disambiguated (same thing there). VanTucky ^(talk) 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Tim Vickers 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We've experienced disputes in the past over the definition of "Many". Some individuals believe that "many" is a vague POV term and frequently change it to "some". I fear that if we say that "Many scientists" without providing a general number, we might have the same problems in the future. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel like the notability and detailed nature of the criticism as outlined in the article basically makes the fact that there are many, rather than just a few, scientific critics a truism. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In general you can avoid the "many/some" argument by citing a leading proponent of any controversial view "Scientists such as Bob Smith say.." or "In a rebuttal of this view, the psychologist Pete Brown wrote that.." This makes a statement much less controversial and also reads better as it is more specific. Tim Vickers 23:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, There's no one specific notable scientist opponent of parapsychology or it's methods or conclusions. There are dozens that come to mind but we can't cite all of them. We need to just state that "some" scientists. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a handful of "strong" opponents however. Alcock is the notable leading scientist in opposition to parapsychology. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Alcock "the" notable leading scientist opposed to parapsychology? Why not Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, Blackmore, Shermer, Asimov, or Sagan? All of these people are/were strong critics of parapsychology and all of which are probably more notable. We can't limit it to one single person. We should either list a few of the MOST notable, say "some" or say "many". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He's the guy that keeps showing up in all these sources. Those other guys (as far as I've seen) don't show up half as much. Or even if you said "Scientists such as Holmes, Watson, and Moriarty", that'd be fine too. I don't know, Annalisa would probably know better than I. I'll skate on the idea that if you add up all the people who have ever said something bad about parapsychology, it probably counts up to the ambiguous "many". I only get concerned when the words "most scientists" are used. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the fact that Alcock appears in most of the referenced sources automatically means he should be "the notable leading scientist" on the issue while they are so many more notable scientists who fit the bill. I do BTW agree that "many scientists" is fine. I just hope it doesn't result in edit wars. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 4 is difficult. Here's the problem: the alternative view to the "interpretation" is all the criticisms that are in the criticism section (without rebuttal). It's difficult to gauge "how large these groups are in relation to the rest of the population in question". The population in question would be those familiar with the study. On one hand you have the researchers themselves and the other scientists who support the interpretation, and on the other hand you have those scientists who don't support the interpretation. I'm not sure how that would be worded in proportion when we don't even know how many are actually familiar with the study. We could say many scientists familiar with the studies support the interpretation and many don't, but that's not really imparting anything more useful than what is already there. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Tim figured this out for us. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA Nomination

Does this article meet the criteria to be a Featured Article? I believe it probably does, nominating it for Featured Article might also bring some more editors to help improve it. I've added it for FA nomination here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parapsychology. Please add input and help progress the FA review to help it become a Featured Article ASAP. If you believe it's FA criteria then show your support by saying Support and then giving a reason. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite there, but I'm looking forward to input from others who have worked on FA articles before. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Annalisa Ventola

Annalisa Ventola, You should probably refrain from making major edits like this one [[1]] without providing any info on the talk page about it prior to doing it or even leaving an edit summary. The article has just been promoted to GA status and the last thing we want is someone making major changes to it and igniting an edit war. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm shifting things around and tightening up the language for the sake of readability issues. If you have serious issues with any specific change, you are welcome to improve upon it. I'm sure that a consensus can be reached. The GA article tag still invites us to make improvements. That is what I am attempting to do. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While so far I have been fine with the changes and GA status doesn't entail static articles, I completely agree with WDM on this one. For an article that has been recognized as GA-quality and is not under the WP:BLP, nothing could so drastically important enough to not to wait for at least a nominal response. And imo, completely re-structuring and renaming that sub-section is not a minor change by even the broadest definition. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not say anything about minor changes above. Please do not put words in my mouth.

It was not appropriate to nominate this article for GA status when other editors expressed that they were not done working with it. I've said repeatedly that I wanted to work on the criticism section. I made an effort to do this for weeks in the draft state with WDM'a cooperation, only to find my requests for changes repeatedly ignored. The heading "Selection bias" was created without consensus, the new heading more accurately reflects what was there before...better yet, it actually describes the text underneath it. This article is not done. I'm not done. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As I just said, and you have pointed out, GA doesn't equal "don't touch". What it does mean is that the content was approved as being very well-written, so any major changes are not absolutely, immmediately vital. This isn't some stub needing drastic measures and bold editing. I feel this way irregardless of the status of the article, but obviously other, outside editors agree with me because of the approval. The point is Annalisa, whether GA or not, drastic, sweeping changes without reason are quite likely to be reverted without reason. So if you want stability and to see your changes take effect, then participate in what is fundamentally a collaborative process, not a solo one. We're not asking you to refrain from making changes, we're asking you to talk to us about your changes like a reasonable person. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of your sweeping generalizations. I forgot to leave an edit summary for ONE of my changes today. And being a relative newcomer to this article, you are not one to speak of the collaborative process here. You seem to have little regard for the processes that went into getting the article where it is today...or the roles that other editors played in constructing it and the draft proceeding it. Additionally, I am getting a little tired of your uncivil remarks, and I don't appreciate the taunting message that you placed on my talk page today. Unless you decide to reaquaint yourself with a few key policies here at Wikipedia, most especially WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL, I'm going to cease responding to your comments. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is, of course, your perogative whether you discuss anything. But this isn't just about one edit. I am not the one who brought up this issue, so labeling me a rude newbie isn't a response to the issue at hand. Asking for at least a simple edit summary on bold edits isn't rude or ludicrous. As to the charge of trying to own the article, for the third time now I remind you that you free to make any edits you please, irregardless of GA status. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that we've all been editing this article long enough to know what would or wouldn't cause potential disputes. If you plan to make an edit that you think may cause a dispute, please discuss the edit on the talk page prior to making it. This is the only way to avoid these arguments. Simply outline what the change is you plan to make and wait for a day or two for discussions prior to making it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before we put it up for GA, it's likely to get ripped apart by editors not even involved in the article currently. Now that it's up for FA status, it will probably undergo even more comprehensive changes. My feeling is that as long as the edits aren't really bad edits we need to relax and let the process happen. I'd like to tighten some things up myself but don't have the time right now to do anything worthwhile. I go with the WP:1RR myself, meaning that I'll try something on my own, but if it's not well received then I'm open to discussion. I feel that's a healthy interpretation of WP:BOLD --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's hard to keep up with a dozen new edits and determine what exactly the changers were. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that I agree with completely. I use the "history"'s diffs but they are so hard to read at times. Sometimes I get what the changes were, but I have to use the "find on page" feature of my browser just to see where they were. MediaWiki really needs to come up with a better way of following changes. I don't personally have the time to re-read the article constantly just to see if it still reads ok. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the only dispute right now is over whether it was okay for me to make a bunch of edits. Nobody is complaining about the actual content of what I did. Read over the criticism section. Like it? Great. Don't? Change it. This is the encylopedia that anyone can edit, so please don't waste my time by asking me to justify myself for...um...editing. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That was a section that I had raised concerns about previously. We changed it, together and in public, and now you've reverted it all. Since we actually discussed this beforehand, and since I explained my edits beforehand, would you please explain yours? Antelan ^talk 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we didn't change it together. WDM did. My requests for changes were promptly ignored. Want an explanation of what I did? Look at the page history. Look at the diffs. I made sure that paragraphs were coherent and about a single topic. I made word changes for clarification. I made sure that there was a clear distinction between concepts like 'experiments' and 'meta-analysis' (i.e. a meta-analysis is not an experiment). What I did not do was add or delete any sources, nor add or delete any of the general topics fo discussion. If I had, I probably would've discussed it here first. Again, if you have a problem with the criticism section, could we discuss your issues about specific changes, rather than the fact that I had the audacity to actually make some? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed my specific issues on WDM's version's talk page awhile back. I will kindly refer you there to see some very specific comments that are once again pertinent to the version you've created (title of the section, etc.). Antelan ^talk 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Was this about your heading on Selection Bias? If I remember correctly, NealParr, VanTucky, and I all opposed the heading, but WDM went and changed it to what you wanted anyway. If you want to revisit this issue, let's create an new subject line and discuss it. Perhaps a straw poll would be useful. Is there anything else you want to change? If so, go right ahead and do it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to realize that it's difficult for us to determine the changes once they are made, and to determine what actually changed. It helps everyone if you simply post what you're planning to change prior to changing it and get an idea of how we all feel. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's how to determine changes once they are made: First, (if you're on the talk page) scroll to the top of the page. Then click (with the left hand mouse button) the tab that says "article." When that page loads, click the tab that says "history." Then click the radio buttons of the two versions you want to compare. When you get the page -called a "diff" in Wikipedia speak- You can see the changes, because they will be in different colors. It's really easy once you get the hang of it- Wikimedia has been made pretty easy to use, although it still has some flaws.

It's good to edit here. That's what Wikipedia is about, making the articles better by editing them. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following it too. I'd like to see more descriptive edit summaries. Some of the recent changes have no summaries at all or has "doesn't change the meaning" as a summary or "like this better". Those don't really tell someone scanning the history what actual changes were made. Users are forced to look at the diffs to see what changes were made. I know, I'm guilty of it too, but there's a lot going on and it's hard to follow. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Those of you making these recent edits should probably be a little less bold and a little more careful. I've had to correct a few grammar mistakes since the newer edits were made. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky, please compose your comments off-line, tracking through a half-dozen after-thought edits of the same entry is annoying. It is hard enough to constructively track all of these comments without that.

I have no idea why you all are so anxious to get GA or Fa or whatever status it is when the article has just recently been given back to the public. I think you have added an unnecessary complexity to achieving stability here and the degree of your attack on Annalisa Ventola for just doing what editors are supposed to do seems to be more a reflection of your desire to get an award than to produce a stable article. I for one want to see what she has to say, as I expect she knows a little more about the subject than the rest of us. Tom Butler 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Annalisa, no one thinks it's not "okay for you to make a bunch of edits". It's about discussing the potentially controversial edits so other editors don't have to ramble through the history diffs trying to surmise what you were doing and why. That's all. And none of us are perfect, I'm certainly still working on that. As to the content issue in Criticism: yes, I agree about with changes to Selection Bias on structural grounds. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that my edits were not controversial. Nobody has complained about the actual edits that I made. That's because all I did was make the criticism section stronger and better using my expertise and my skills as a writer. Fundamentally, it's still the same criticism section, just clearer and more organized. Unless somebody has a specific complaint about the actual content of my contributions, this entire debate seems to be about whether or not it was okay for me to essentially do a copy edit job without seeking permission. I'm not going to work that way. If and when I decide to insert or delete something controvesial, it will be unambiguous, and it will be discussed on this talk page first. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that WDM disagrees with your edits, or at least finds them controversial. But once again, it's not about whether or not it's okay for you to make edits. It's about discussing them. But we're going in circles here. I'm not going to go on any further. Let's just move on, as I'm sure there other changes you're dying to make. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WDM hasn't specified any particular problems with my edits. When/if he does, I'll be happy to work with him to reach consensus. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Per my observations brought up on WDM's draft's talk page, I have updated the section. I have modified some sentences, rearranged the content, and changed the title to something more indicative of the content. Antelan ^talk 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with editing directly. The changes we've been making should not be controversial- for instance, the current article had reincarnation defined as survival of death. Such blaring mistakes should not need any prior notice of correction. I suggested this be changed before the draft went live, and the suggestion was ignored.

Further, the gradual changes we have been making are not hard to follow on the diffs. You don't have to go one diff at a time. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You weren't ignored Martin, Just overlooked. I was getting a lot of requests and it wasn't easy to keep up with them all. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reincarnation def

I've simplified the wording of the definition to read: The rebirth of a soul or other non-physical aspect of human consciousness in a new physical body after death. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. In fact, this is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say the same thing can be said in less words. These types of changes can tighten the article up considerably. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main graphic

We need a better main graphic if this is going to be FA some day. I'm going to make a custom one to release to the public domain. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Much agreed. Thanks a bundle Neal. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what would be an ideal photo. Perhaps something like a pendulum and an out of focus man behind the pendulum trying to alter it's trajectory in some way to reflect the PEAR studies. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It'll be a few days before I can get to it, but what I'll probably make is a 3-D CGI of two people separated by a wall, like separate cubicles, one of them focused on a teddy bear and the other drawing a stick-figure teddy bear on paper. Or something like that. Showing motion, like a pendulum swinging would be harder to translate in a static graphic. The tag line will read "artist rendition of a parapsychology experiment" so as not to create any confusion that it is a real experiment. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, would there be POV issues on an artist's rendition? Like should the guy be drawing a stick-figure of an apple if the other guy is holding a teddy bear? : ) Or is it neutral enough to make it look like it could be interpreted as either a bear or a dog?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think graphics count. Then don't in other articles. And, we have a pic of Randi. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't stress about it Neal, an "artist's rendition" is fine. Anything you can do would be welcome, as the images are pretty spare in the article as is. VanTucky ^(talk) 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're able to make an adequate 3d rendering of such an experiment and it's allowed to be used in the article then just make what the person is writing scribble and don't actually picture it. Just make it too vague of an image to be interpreted as anything. For instance fuzzy lines or simply a blank page where the person is in the process of drawing something. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The drawing would have to resemble what the other guy is looking at to make sense. If we can't do that we'll have to do something else. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point would be made just fine without showing the drawing on the page, so long as the caption linked down to the right section. Alternatively, that Nature article had a photo from the PEAR lab with randomness-generating machines. One of those might make for a really cool graphic. Antelan ^talk 19:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To use that image and comply with fair use laws, it would almost definitely have to be placed directly adjacent to the text mentioning the PEAR lab. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant a 3D mockup of a similar device based on that image; sorry for my ambiguity. Antelan ^talk 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll pass on that idea if it has to be like that and go with something else. If you can't show what the guy is drawing for POV reasons, then it'll end up looking like your typical office. One guy in a cubicle doodling when he should be working and another guy in a different cubicle having an apparently unhealthy obsession with teddy bears. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logical Fallacy

I would like to see the following sentence removed from the criticism section:

"Assuming that something paranormal is occurring when other normal processes could account for the effect is considered a logical fallacy."

It is certainly a true statement, and I have no problem with it as it stands alone. But how does it apply to the field of parapsychology in this context? Who is doing the assuming? Generally, parapsychologists prefer the term 'psi' because that term does not assume that something paranormal is going on. Others prefer the term 'anomalous'. When it comes to the type of research being discussed in this section, parapsychologists are not assuming that there is something paranormal is occuring, just that something is occuring that is currently unexplained by science (whether that process is 'normal' or not).--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is, is it cited by a source? If so, it should stay as a valid point of basic criticism related to a cognitive presumption of the existence of psi. If it's not verifiable with any of the article's sources, then remove it. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference points to the skeptics dictionary, and I question if that site meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Most of the article uses very strong sources, this reference is a point of weakness. Also, if you look at the article, it begins by citing proper definitions of 'psi' (a term used to identify anomalous outcomes without attributing it to a paranormal cause), but then sets up something called the 'psi assumption' stating the opposite...that parapsychologists say that psi = paranomal causation. Additionally, I'm not sure how the editor who put in the article derived this statement from the source.

But the bigger issue that this sentence lacks a context and doesn't quite fit with the rest of the paragraph. Who is doing the assuming? What kind of research? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a violation of Occam's razor, to be sure, but I don't know about it being a logical fallacy. Antelan ^talk 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps then, a discussion of Occam's razor would be more appropriate? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Occam's Razor is what they are talking about anyway. A change seems to be in order. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No, It's a fallacy alright. It would probably be an Appeal to probability.

This has the argument form:

Possibly P.

Therefore, P.

Or, Possibly paranormal.

Therefore, Paranormal.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The fallacy that the SkepDic says is either begging the question or affirming the consequent and is referring to "psi" (actual wording, 7th paragrapah from the top, including the red part [2]). The wording of this line should reflect that instead of the nondescript logical fallacy and paranormal. It also doesn't say anything about "normal processes" in the paragraph dealing with fallacies. Other problems with the wording include attribution, thus we reword it to:

"Assuming that psi is occurring is considered by skeptics to either be begging the question or affirming the consequent."

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm liking this better already, but how do we work this statement into a paragraph about statistical deviation? The current sentence that we're trying to replace seems to come out of nowhere, and this version (although much more specific and with better wording) would also come out of nowhere. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The section currently reads (in part): "Ray Hyman contends that even if experiments could be made to reproduce the findings of certain parapsychological studies under specificed conditions, this would be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated.[41] Assuming that something paranormal is occurring when other normal processes could account for the effect is considered a logical fallacy.[42]"

How about changing it to: "Ray Hyman contends that, even if experiments could be made to reproduce the findings of certain parapsychological studies under specificed conditions, this would be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated.[41] Invoking the paranormal to explain such findings when normal processes could account for them is consistent with logical fallacies such as begging the question or affirming the consequent.[42]"

It makes the transition obvious, and introduces the fallacies. We should probably explain how it could fit both of those fallacies, too, which I can do. Antelan ^talk 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ray Hyman contends that, even if experiments could be made to reproduce the findings of certain parapsychological studies under specificed conditions, this would be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated.[41] Invoking the paranormal to explain such findings when normal processes might someday be found to account for them is consistent with logical fallacies such as begging the question or affirming the consequent.[42]"

This makes the situation clear. I'll have to review the source to make sure that the logical fallacies are actually mentioned in it. If they are not, then this is OR, and we can't do that. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that one. It gives the impression that normal processes can't already account for them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And the other gives the impression that normal processes "could" account for them. Whereas this one only says that normal processes may be found in the future. This is in fact the state of things, as no normal processes have been found. Try:

"Ray Hyman contends that, even if experiments could be made to reproduce the findings of certain parapsychological studies under specificed conditions, this would be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated.[41] Invoking the paranormal to explain such findings when it may be possible to account for them in terms of normal processes is consistent with logical fallacies such as begging the question or affirming the consequent.[42]" Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the sentences (yours, mine, and the current one in the article) are worded wrongly. Invoking the paranormal to explain such findings when normal processes could account for them is an Occam's razor violation (i.e., don't postulate more entities than necessary). At the same time, assuming that psi exists is begging the question, while assuming that "if psi exists then we'll see deviations from the norm, and we see deviations from the norm, therefore psi exists" is affirming the consequent. Trying to roll all 3 critiques into one sentence is perilously difficult; each concept deserves its own sentence (the source backs the latter 2 claims, but I'll have to find another re: Occam's razor). Antelan ^talk 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'm guessing, but I think Hyman is talking only about the psi assumption. Thus, that's all we can talk about. A different criticism is Occam's razor, which could be sourced to Alcock I think. I've never heard the other one, re logical fallacies. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Occam's razor isn't immune to violation [3], but more to the point, we only follow the sources. This source doesn't mention occam's razor. The only proper wording is based on the source. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Oops, should read closer next time, you guys are talking about adding another source.)--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Glancing over the source, it looks like it might support the first sentence.

Ray Hyman contends that, even if experiments could be made to reproduce the findings of certain parapsychological studies under specific conditions, this would not justify concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated, because to demonstrate psi conclusively requires a theory as well as data.[42] Now, that it can support. I don't see the rest of it. Here's the paragraph:

Again, I do not have time to develop another part of this story. Because even if Utts and her colleagues are correct and we were to find that we could reproduce the findings under specified conditions, this would still be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. This is because the current claim is based entirely upon a negative outcome -- the sole basis for arguing for ESP is that extra-chance results can be obtained that apparently cannot be explained by normal means. But an infinite variety of normal possibilities exist and it is not clear than one can control for all of them in a single experiment. You need a positive theory to guide you as to what needs to be controlled, and what can be ignored. Parapsychologists have not come close to this as yet. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can put something together later tomorrow that works everything out. 04:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Wikidudeman ^(talk)

Here's what I've added "It has also been stated that assuming psi exists is affirming the consequent or begging the question. Reasoning that if a person is psychic, then that individual will do better than chance in experiments and since that person does better than chance then therefore that person must be psychic would be considered the fallacy of affirming the consequent.". Tell me what you all think. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have a source and it makes sense. I think the general reader would not be able to understand it- but I have no objection. Is everyone OK with using Carroll as a source? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be remembered that Carroll isn't being used as an authoritative source, simply a "citation" that proves that this is what some people say. If someone wants to see that the argument outlined is a fallacy they can click on the link to affirming the consequent. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's why I'm OK with it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a run-on sentence, readabilty is an issue, and it fails to account for some of the excellent suggestions above. Otherwise, it seems a'ight to me...at least as a starting point. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's a good start, and it leaves room for expansion into a perhaps more easily understandable paragraph, which I'll work on when out of the office. Antelan ^talk 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What needs done?

We've been having contributions be made on a daily basis up until a few days ago and then nothing. Where did everyone go? The article is being nominated for FA and some of the oppositions say it needs new work and is being worked on yet nothing is being done. If we're going to work on it then let's work on it. Should we put it through peer review? Input would be great. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it a few weeks. What's the hurry? Annalisa wants to add some things, I have yet to go through it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa's on vacation. I'm working on some offsite projects. What I'd like to do is go through and tighten the prose, but I really don't have the time for it right now. I could do the work, but not all the discussions surrounding it : ) Really, I'm just happy it's stable. No edits for several days is a good thing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brought up at the FAC

Here are some things brought up at the FAC that might be able to be fixed in this article. I want everyone to discuss them and provide some opinions to them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Run article through Wikipedia:Peer review

Should we run the article through Peer review? Input? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You've already put the article up for peer review, which I think is a crucial idea if we want this to be an FA. Antelan ^talk 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prune the large External link farm per WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT

Should the External links be trimmed down? Too many of them for various parapsychological institutions? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is per SandyGeorgia if I'm not mistaken. Antelan ^talk 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree that we don't need to list that many of them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa had strong opinions on this and is currently on vacation. I'd wait until she gets back as she might have some thoughts on it.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not urgent, so there's no reason not to wait for a few days. Antelan ^talk 05:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provide better definitions for "Critics"

The criticism section frequently says "critics say"; I suspect there are better definitions available for these critics, like professional scientists, physicians, or whatever; one of the sources uses the wording "mainstream scientists", so I suspect that "critics" can be better defined.(From User:SandyGeorgia) Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

From Tim Vickers above:

"Looking at the article, this last point could be easily fixed by stating who you are citing for this opinion. Just a matter of noting who was the lead author of the paper that made this interpretation. Tim Vickers 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)"

I think that's a good way to do it from an attribution and neutrality standpoint. Defining one end as "proponents" and then defining the critical side as "professional scientists" or "mainstream scientists" has pov issues. There's mainstream professional scientists on the pro end as well. I wouldn't see a problem with something like "skeptical scientists" however. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the opinions of outside editors. Labeling "mainstream scientists" as "skeptical scientists" just because they disagree with the pro-paranormalists is a bit of a stretch. Antelan ^talk 05:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a proposition, and they're skeptical of it, hence skeptical scientist. Many of the critics call themselves skeptics, or skeptical. I prefer Tim Vicker's suggestion, take the notables and call them by name. If a particular criticism is most given by Hyman, say Hyman. If it's Alcock, say Alcock. If a critical analysis of a particular study is done by Bosch et al, say Bosch. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That synthesis you've made is original research. That's fine for the talk page, but it's not uncontroversial; the combination of "controversial" and "original research" make for dangerous territory within an article. Antelan ^talk 13:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What part is original research, that they call themselves skeptical scientists? References 22 through 45 (and a few scattered others), which makes up the sources for the Criticism section, are full of "skeptic" and "skeptical". It's not a bad word. It's the word they use. They love the word. Most of the vocal critics of parapsychology are members of or affiliated with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Read the sources, it's not original research. I understand that editors aren't required to be familiar with the subject matter or read the sources before commenting, but it does help.

I should add that here skeptical doesn't mean "I just don't buy it" or "I don't believe you". In other words, they're not skeptical just because they disagree with pro-paranormalists. It's a technical term, referring to a philosophical view or approach to science that requires extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. It's not a dismissal of their view to call them rational skeptics. They'd probably consider it a compliment. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your statement was, "There's a proposition, and they're skeptical of it, hence skeptical scientist." This is original research. Self-avowed skeptical scientists are an entirely different issue. However, you have conflated these issues in your most recent comment, which makes it look like I am not "familiar with the subject matter or (have not) read the sources before commenting". This is empty rhetoric. Antelan ^talk 15:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You say, "It's not a dismissal of their view to call them rational skeptics. They'd probably consider it a compliment." They're probably consider rational skepticism to be a function of the term "scientist", and they'd probably be aware that explicitly couching "scientist" with "skeptic" on a page about parapsychology is an attempt to marginalize their work. For clarity, this is with regards to your original research that you suggest applying to the article, not the self-avowed skeptics. Antelan ^talk 15:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As you pointed out, that line isn't in the article, it's on the talk page. Is there something you're actually disagreeing with that pertains to the article and how to better define "Critics"? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your second insult-laden comment in a row; I advise you to desist. Your original comment that spurred my reply was, "I wouldn't see a problem with something like "skeptical scientists" however." I disagree with that, and with your original research in support of it. I have explained my rationale. Clearly, self-avowed skeptics may be termed as such, so do not try to conflate these separate issues. As I noted above, "Labeling "mainstream scientists" as "skeptical scientists" just because they disagree with the pro-paranormalists is a bit of a stretch." Antelan ^talk 15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If asking you if there's something you disagree with is an insult, it has to be chalked up to lack of tone in text. There's nothing insulting there. I was actually asking you because I want to address the issue of critics not being defined, and address what you said about me laying on original research and how it's not. I'm a big fan of spelling out central ideas behind things in articles as it's informative to the reader. I tried to do that in the draft, spell out the central ideas behind the pro-side, that it explores the idea that the mind is separate from the body. I have sources for that but it was skipped over. Not everyone agreed with the draft. We just wanted to get back to actually editing. Now the issue is that "critics" aren't defined clearly, and I agree. The central idea behind the con-side is rational skepticism. Nowhere in the criticism section is rational skepticism, or even skepticism, covered. The article suffers for it because we're left with the nondescript "critics". If a paragraph were added to the opening of the criticism section that says "Many vocal critics of parapsychology subscribe to the notion of scientific skepticism" (or something like that) and a few lines about what rational skepticism is, then you can replace many instances of "critics" with other terms from rational skepticism because the context is already laid out. There's plenty of sources for rational skepticism being the central idea behind it already in the article, but if those aren't enough I can provide more. Not everything has to be a disagreement. This one is almost a no-brainer. The vocal critics (ie. more notable) are subscribers to rational skepticism. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Contrast "I understand that editors aren't required to be familiar with the subject matter or read the sources before commenting, but it does help" and "Is there something you're actually disagreeing with?" with "There's nothing insulting there".

You have novel ideas with regards to the need to call every scientist in this article a "skeptic", but I don't think they're going to fly. I look forward to getting feedback from others during the peer review process. Antelan ^talk 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Contrast "That synthesis you've made is original research... the combination of 'controversial' and 'original research' make for dangerous territory within an article" with reading the sources and seeing that skepticism is mentioned quite frequently.

You have novel ideas about what constitutes original research. As to calling every scientist in the article a "skeptic", I hope it's not insulting to ask you to read what I wrote. The pro-scientists wouldn't be labeled skeptics. Specific scientists that make claims can be called by name (per Tim Vickers). If rational skepticism is defined in the article, the left over scientists in the criticism section can be called critics, skeptics, or a number of other terms. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"The pro-scientists wouldn't be labeled skeptics. ... If rational skepticism is defined in the article, the left over scientists in the criticism section can be called critics, skeptics, or a number of other terms." Yes, this is precisely what I'm objecting to. Antelan ^talk 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

They wouldn't have to be called skeptical scientists. It's just my idea based on the central idea behind the vocal critics, and the issue of better defining critics. Is there a better way? I don't think labeling them all as mainstream scientists will fly either. What about just calling them by name? (a blurb about rational skepticism should still be in there somewhere). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no good justification to avoid calling a psychiatrist a psychiatrist, a physicist a physicist, a doctor a doctor, etc. Using their name would be fine ("John Nash, an economist"). Antelan ^talk 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and that solves the problem. Unrelated to the criticism section, but related to the other sections, how about "Robert Jahn, physicist". Those guys are reduced to the nondescript "researcher". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provide better definitions for "Critics" and "Researchers"

Both "critics" and "researchers" are nondescript and need better definition. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "parapsychological researcher" is a pretty descriptive term, on par with "psychologist" in its ability to give the reader an instant idea. "Critic" and "skeptic", on the other hand, tell the reader nothing about what the individual does or is known for, unless the person actually makes a career out of being a critic or a skeptic of this field specifically (James Randi, for example). Antelan ^talk 18:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Researchers are often psychologists, biologists, physicists, and the like. For example Robert Jahn is a physicist. Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist. Ian Stevenson is a psychiatrist. "Parapsychological researcher" is not adequately descriptive as it doesn't explain the researcher's background or qualifications to make statements related to psychology, physics, and biology. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For some of those gents, you'd learn more about what they actually do by reading "parapsychological researcher" than "biologist". However, there's nothing wrong with saying, "parapsychological researcher with formal training in biology" or something to that effect, since it gives more information than either would alone. Antelan ^talk 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad we agree on that one.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We might want to take special care and look to the sources on some of these, however. I don't recall any sources specifically referring to Jahn, Stevenson, and some others as a parapsychologist. I think there may be a distinction that is drawn in overlaps with parapsychological work. Radin self-identifies and is generally referred to as a parapsychologist, but I'm not sure that's the case for Jahn. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't call him a parapsychologist, so I'm not sure why you're pointing that out. He is a parapsychological researcher, although we don't explicitly say so in the article yet: Jahn has papers entitled, "“The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena" and "On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomen", and even "On the representation of psychic research to the community of established science," published in the journal called Research in Parapsychology. Antelan ^talk 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about when we do call him a "parapsychological researcher with a background in physics". I'm saying we would want to take care that "parapsychological researcher" is appropriately used. If it is, then it is. Back to critics, is there anything wrong with calling a scientist "skeptical scientist" or "skeptical psychologist" if their papers are published in the Skeptical Inquirer? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the title of their paper, "On the representation of established science to the community of psychical researchers"? Antelan ^talk 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hyman, Alcock, and many others describe themselves as skeptical scientists throughout their papers. My point is why the double standard? Why is it "parapsychological researcher with a background in physics" instead of "physicist"? Why are "skeptical psychologists" simply "psychologists"? That was my point from the beginning. When you have parapsychology supporters listed as "proponents" or "researchers" and the suggestion is to replace "critics" with "mainstream scientists", "professional scientists", or "physicians", a double standard is created, because "parapsychological researchers" are also "professional scientists", "physicians", and sometimes even "mainstream scientists" in their other work. It's already clear that parapsychologists, for example Jahn, publish work related to parapsychology. That's spelled out in the article. It is the "parapsychology research" section. No "parapsychological researcher" qualifier is needed. The more descriptive "physicist," his actual title, is more appropriate, especially if you're going to be listing off the qualifications of the critics without qualifier. Robert Jahn is a physicist and engineer who engages in parapsychological work, not a parapsychological researcher who used to be a physicist. Framing it that way has pov issues when the critics are presented as unbiased. If the critics are not presented as unbiased, then it's not an issue.

I'm not saying that you're saying this, but if we did say they are "parapsychological researchers who have a background in physics", instead of "physicists who engage in parapsychological work", we run the risk of suggesting that a physicist stops being a physicist the day they take up parapsychology. That would be ridiculously pov. They did earn the title physicist, it is their title, and not listing the full qualifications (of critics and paranormal researchers alike) would be just as bad as leaving it as "researchers" and "critics". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If the goal is to let the reader know what's going on, then we should describe people in the most relevant terms. Bill Clinton is a lawyer by training; should we introduce him as such, instead of as President? I know plenty of molecular biologists who no longer do molecular biology, and instead refer to themselves in terms of their new field of research. They're not insulting themselves by doing so - they're being descriptive. What's the goal here? For some of the folks in this article, the nature of their work makes it more accurate and descriptive to call them "parapsychological researchers who have a background in physics". For others, it would not be the case. It's not categorical. Likewise, someone like Randi is a magician by training, but what is most relevant about him is his skepticism. What you're calling ridiculously pov is really a necessary, case-by-case way to describe one human being to another. Antelan ^talk 23:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There's several goals at play. One is, of course, a well-written article about parapsychology. That's what we're ultimately striving for. But that goal is in the context of and eclipsed by neutrality, the parameters of the well-written article here and the prime principle of Wikipedia. A well-written article that isn't neutral doesn't meet the parameters of Wikipedia. Right now the two parties are defined as "researcher" and "critic". That doesn't really make for a well-written article about parapsychology, but at least it's balanced. The article suffers for it and we take a few points off the ultimate goal, but we do meet the parameters. When we start tinkering with the elements of the article to make it better, we have to again re-examine it in the terms of its parameters, in this case the neutrality. Does tinkering with this one element disrupt the overall balance? This isn't just rhetorical. It's directly relevant to the issue of better defining the critics. If you define one, for balance (and meeting the parameters) you define the other. If you partially define one, you only have to partially define the other. Ideally, you want both fully defined, which also includes any biases.

If Bill Clinton is also a molecular biologist, and was commenting about stem cell research in a news article, the news article would probably mention that he has the credentials of a molecular biologist. If Robert Jahn is Dean Emeritus of the School of Engineering and Applied Science of Princeton University and the article is talking his research looking for a human intention effect in what would otherwise be your run-of-the-mill physics experiment, you'd mention that he is both a parapsychological researcher and physicist. So, yes, I do agree that we should describe people in the most relevant terms. I'm saying that in listing off their credentials in the research section, both are relevant. Right now they're described as "researcher", which doesn't tell us anything. Adding "parapsychological" to the "researcher" only tells us half the story.

And now we're back to the critics and fully defining them. In the same sense that "parapsychological researcher" is only half the story, and that "parapsychological researcher and physicist" is the full story showing all biases and credentials, calling a critic "psychologist" is only half the story, especially when they self-describe as a "skeptical scientist". Before you mentioned (in an edit comment) calling a spade a spade, and I totally agree with that as well. I'd add to it that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The notable critics in the criticism section are "skeptical psychologists" (besides Randi). They're not just psychologists, they are psychologists who subscribe to the philosophy of rational skepticism. A fully defined critic would include that strength/bias (depending on how you look at it).

There's a lot of different ways to word these things, but those are the principles in meeting the parameters of neutrality while trying to write a well-written article.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

People don't call those who consider string theory to be dubious "critics" or "skeptics" - they call them "physicists". If you can find sources that label the scientists in this article "rational skeptics" or "skeptical psychologists", they can be labeled as such. Antelan ^talk 07:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use more citations

There is too much uncited text, and a keen eye needs to run through the prose. From User:SandyGeorgia) Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is that issue I was talking about before, where a citation covers the entire paragraph, but for some reason people don't see it like that and want a [1] after every period. Not sure how to fix it considering the entire article is indeed sourced. I do agree that a keen eye needs to run through the prose. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If the same source backs every sentence in a paragraph, then we can re-invoke the source after every few sentences (especially the more contentious ones or the ones that are less obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject). Antelan ^talk 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's what's necessary, but I think it's redundant and is one of the things I personally find annoying in articles. Today's Robert Baden-Powell doesn't do that. Sure, controversial articles may require more citations, but that's because they have more controversial statements. When a statement isn't controversial, it doesn't really need a source. Repeating the same source over and over just because it's controversial article is, in my opinion, insulting the reader. But, again, if that's what's needed, go for it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Being explicit about sources for controversial statements is an obligation to the reader, not an insult. Antelan ^talk 05:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I said above that controversial statements require citations. Citing every other thing in an article (non-controversial statements) because the topic itself is controversial insults the reader's intelligence. Just a personal opinion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I said. There is no disagreement here. Antelan ^talk 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improve statements which can become dated

Statements that will become dated need to be refined, example: Contemporary parapsychological research has waned considerably. From User:SandyGeorgia) Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's contemporary parapsychological research, I'm not sure how else that would be worded. It's not like Wikipedia articles are printed and set in stone, so if for some reason parapsychology grew all of the sudden, it could easily be changed to reflect the new status. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a simple solution would be to frame it in years or decades. For example, "After the 1970s" or "Since the 1990s". Antelan ^talk 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a rewording, but it would say pretty much the same thing. If contemporary is present day, and "after the 1970s" or "since the 1990s" is up to and including the present day, they still mean contemporary. The issue was "statements that will become dated". The only thing that would make the statement dated is if parapsychology started growing. Then it would read "after the 1970s parapsychology waned before it started growing again in 200X". Until that happens, it's all contemporary. I mean, you guys can change it to say the same thing another way, but it's still saying the same thing. That's what I was saying. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the growing part would still be dated, per your definition. Antelan ^talk 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's dated. The section is called Parapsychology today. It's dated to the present tense, contemporary. The issue was "statements that will become dated", or statements that will become past tense dated, or statements that will change over time. For waning to become past tense dated, or change from the present tense, parapsychology would have to grow, then that would be its new present tense. It's very unlikely that will happen, but if it does it can be updated since it's an ever evolving article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I follow you. Thanks. Antelan ^talk 12:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Np. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAAS

Can someone find the quote from the source used to back the statement from this article, "The annual AAAS convention provides parapsychologists with a forum for presenting their research to scientists from other fields and for advancing parapsychology in the context of the AAAS's lobbying on national science policy."? It is sourced, but I don't have access to the book to see if it corroborates this statement. From the partial Google Book excerpt that I have access to, it does not appear to me that this claim is backed by the book, so I plan on removing the sentence if no backing can be found from the book. Antelan ^talk 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that was added by Annalisa. I'd give it a week or so for her to comment. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, and per WP:V, if the source given doesn't back the claim then simply remove it. The burden of proof is on Annalisa, and honestly I think the idea that scientists from other fields see the convention as a place to hobnob with parapsychologists is highly unlikely given the ArbCom supported fact that mainstream science generally ignores the field. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim in this wording is that parapsychologists see the convention as a place to hobnob with mainstream scientists, rather than the other way around. Not sure if that's provided through this source, but it's not that extraordinary of a claim and can probably be sourced elsewhere, with similar wording. The reason it's not that extraordinary is that it sounds like the benefits that would come with an affiliation with the AAAS. Extraordinary would be that those privileges are given to every other affiliate but the PA. If someone can find the benefits given to affiliates of the AAAS on the web (I don't think it's posted at their site), then the wording could read "The AAAS affiliation entitles the Parapsychological Association to..." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this claim comes off as positive, not neutral. We're talking about the benefits of being an AAAS member, which gives us rather unencyclopedic prose. In contrast, the article on the American Medical Association doesn't devote an entire section to the AAAS and how the AAAS lets doctors present their research and advance medicine in the context of AAAS's lobbying on national science policy. It is sufficient to mention that parapsychology is an AAAS member; talking about the perquisites of said membership does this article a disservice. Antelan ^talk 08:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The section is "Establishment of the Parapsychological Association", under history, and the affiliation of the PA to the AAAS is a notable piece of this part of parapsychology's history, more notable than it would be for an obvious organization like the American Medical Association to be affiliated with them. How would you neutrally describe why that is an important part of the story? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cutting the sentence in contention would leave us with something more neutral. Antelan ^talk 09:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "benefits" given to AAAS members. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Such as the benefit of being able to attend and present at AAAS meetings? Antelan ^talk 09:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Affiliates shall have such privileges and obligations as the Board of Directors may determine" is written into the AAAS Constitution [4], it just doesn't elaborate on what those privileges are on the website (that I saw). The AMA associated with the AAAS, no biggie. It's expected. The PA associated with the AAAS, suprises some, but more to the point it's a huge deal in parapsychological circles and among the critics who want them removed from the AAAS. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

John A. Wheeler was the guy who demanded the removal of the PA from the AAAS (1979) if you guys want to read up on it. They denied his motion. No one (to my knowledge) ever considered the AMA affiliation to be that big of a deal. Wheeler raised the fuss after a presentation by Rhine on PSI at an AAAS conference, by the way. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, cutting the specific sentence in question would go quite a ways in resolving neutrality issues here. Antelan ^talk 10:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cutting the sentence should involve input from the person who added it, probably Annalisa. I would wait for her to return from her vacation.

That said, let me add one other thing and then I'll personally leave the issue alone. As a piece of advice, and please take it as advice and not an insult because I'd really like to help you guys edit the article from an informed perspective, but you guys really need to brush up on your history. I say that completely in a friendly manner. I am neutral on this topic and either way it goes I'm fine as long as the article is balanced. But the reason I say you guys need to brush up on the history is because I see you guys hang out at WikiProject Rational Skepticism and from that can assume that you have an interest in skepticism. One of the largest and most influential organizations in skepticism is CSI, and their publication Skeptical Inquirer. CSI used to be CSICOP, where the P stood for Paranormal. CSICOP was formed in 1976, during parapsychology's heyday, and was mostly formed to combat parapsychology. That was like their biggest goal. The formation of CSICOP, and it's efforts to bring down parapsychology, is largely the reason for parapsychology's decrease in popularity, and its lack of acceptance by mainstream science. PA affiliation in 1969. Formation of CSICOP in 1976. Wheeler challenges PA's affiliation with the AAAS in 1979. There's a pattern here and its not coincidental. The AAAS affiliation is a huge part of the history of parapsychology, but so is skepticism's roots. Again, not trying to be insulting. Some of you guys did say you weren't familiar with the subject and just happened upon it one day and from that perspective I'm trying to help you out. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't hang out at Rational Skepticism; I just looked over the page's history, and I've made literally 1 post, whereas you've made 7. I'm concerned when I see comments like yours, because other editors have used allegations such as yours as a launchpad to pigeonhole editors unsympathetic to your view. At the core, you are mistaking a content point for a lack of historical understanding. I certainly understand that parapsychologists see their AAAS affiliation as a victory of sorts. I'm sure that members of other groups in the AAAS, such as the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Association for Cybernetics, and the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, and the American Flood Technologists, and the Graduate Women in Science sorority Sigma Delta Epsilon, are similarly pleased with their membership. The AAAS-parapsychology controversy is notable, but simple membership in the AAAS is not. We have given Annalisa preferential status (not making changes without her consent) for quite some time now, which is highly unusual, and since this is a live version of the article, I do not think that this change merits further waiting. Antelan ^talk 17:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The second part of my comment was a personal note not related to the actual content of the article. If you're not interested in skepticism, please feel free to ignore it. Being interested in skepticism is not a pigeon hole. It is a welcomed perspective. Seriously, pigeon hole? You're the one who tried to make the case that having an interest in paranormal topics is sufficient reason to pigeon hole those editors. Goose and gander, man, even if I were trying to say that skepticism is a reason to pigeon hole someone, which I'm not. My 7 posts are because I am interested in skepticism. I welcome informed edits. When you removed that sentence, you left the edit comment "Removing sentence to better reflect actual contents of source". You've admitted above that you don't even know what the source actually says. You're assuming that it doesn't. Waiting on the editor who added it isn't giving "preferential status". It's Wikipedia etiquette. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I'm assuming that it doesn't because the linked in the reference doesn't contain it. It is incomplete, however, so I do remain open to the possibility that someone will be able to produce the quote. Wikipedia etiquette applies to talk pages, not content. If you think this discussion here is not enough to alert her that I've made the change, I will post a note on her talk page to let her know. Antelan ^talk 21:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be sufficient. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While you're right about the history stuff Neal, it is quite inappropriate to comment on what you see as other users lack of expertise or knowledge. It's a fundamental part of Wikipedia that anyone can contribute, and that there is no qualifier of credentials or prior knowledge. For you to remark on what other users should or should not have knowledge of is a violation of the basic admonition to comment on content, not contributors. It's kinda interesting however, as you managed to make personal attacks and be civil in tone. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for anyone contributing and I completely encourage it. I'd disagree that they are personal attacks as I am only trying to be helpful, but I do appreciate you pointing out that I've been civil. You're right that I should only comment on the content. I don't like it much when negative comments are made about me either and will try to show some restraint in the future. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me what this is all about? Someone summarize this for me so that I can understand it. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan wanted to remove something about the AAAS that presumably Annalisa added because it may not be sourced. I said we should probably wait until she got back from vacation and suggested that it wasn't that controversial, which led into a discussion of whether it was notable. I said that it was from a historical perspective and suggested you guys should read up on the history (in a nice way), implying that you guys weren't very familiar subject. VanTucky said I should keep my comments on the content and not on the editors. He said it was a personal attack, I disagreed because of this quote from WP:NPA#Initial_options (without actually quoting it): "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks". I was civil and didn't attack anyone's personal character, only suggesting that people read up on the history. I did agree with VanTucky that I should stick to commenting on content, and said I would in the future. Nutshell version, did I miss anything? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's your defense, based on a narrowly construed interpretation of WP:NPA, of the politely-worded insults you leveled against me. The nutshell version of the point of this discussion, as it relates to the content, is that there was a sentence, "The annual AAAS convention provides parapsychologists with a forum for presenting their research to scientists from other fields and for advancing parapsychology in the context of the AAAS's lobbying on national science policy," that I removed. This was, inter alia, a discussion of the merits of that removal. Antelan ^talk 01:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, everyone here has insulted everyone else at some point (def. a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone), politely and not so politely. Everyone here has said at one point or another that the other guy didn't know what he or she was talking about. I was trying to be helpful. It's not well received, and hey, I can't help that. I can link up diffs if you want where each of you have done it or we can move on. I really think we should have waited for whoever added that quote to comment. Normal procedures for possibly unsourced content is to put up a citation tag (citation tags generally stay up for some time), and yes I believe it's good etiquette to do so. Normal procedure isn't just to delete it. But really, that's up to whoever added it to be offended. It's not my addition, so I'm not. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Arguing about what the comments were or were not isn't getting us anywhere. My point was taken by Neal for what I intended it, so let's get over it and stick to content. As to your idea about what is normal procedure, I think it depends on the likelihood that the content can be sourced, which is of course subjective. The bottom line is that if it isn't sourced, it can be removed immediately if anyone deems it inappropriate. Unsourced assertions are not given good faith like people are. When or if Annlisa or anyone sources it, it can be re-introduced. From WP:V

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.

Time has been provided for individuals who support the statement to cite it, even with Annalisa gone. And Annalisa has full knowledge of the verifiability policy, she certainly can't claim ignorance. The fact that any discussion on occured is really a courtesy per WP:V.

Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long

This information has been there for long enough without a source, it needs to go until it is. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

::Immediate removal only applies in biographies of living people. It is normal procedure to tag it and give it "a reasonable amount of time" Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, VanTucky quoted the relevant parts. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This very conversation has gone on from August 2nd to the 5th, which is ample discussion and warning. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Three days is not the typical amount of time given, typically it's much longer, and notice was given that the person who probably added it was not around for the discussion, and also there's a question of whether it actually was unsourced. Without insulting anyone, no one read the book.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes- I haven't read all this, but could someone explain to me why a sourced paragraph seems to have been taken out for lack of a source? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You will find adequate explanation by reading the preceding discussion. Antelan ^talk 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm just peeking my head in for a moment before heading back on the road. That statement about parapsychologists' involvement AAAS came from a reliable secondary source, specifically it came from a chapter that is available online electronically (look at page 4 if you are curious). Like NealParr said, this is not a controversial statement. The criticism section discusses to what degree parapsychology is NOT intergrated in mainstream sciences. We should allow a statement describing to what degree it is. The fact that the AAAS provides an audience of mainstream scientists who are willing to discuss developments in parapsychology on a yearly basis is notable for this article. That statement needs to be reintegrated into the article. You are welcome to change the wording, but I would like to see it returned. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is sourced from a chapter that is attempting to portray parapsychology as science, using terms like "encouraging progress" and "In short, future prospects for parapsychological research appear exciting if not guaranteed". This is not some impartial source, which is probably why the sentence that I removed came off as so partisan. Now if what is actually important is the content of that sentence, you could replace it and make it more neutral by saying "Parapsychologists see the annual AAAS convention as a forum for presenting their research to scientists from other fields and for advancing parapsychology in the context of the AAAS's lobbying on national science policy." I am placing this into the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Antelan (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 August 2007

Quotes are avoided in this article for style and to avoid argument-like prose. It's in the talk page archives. In 1979, physicist John A. Wheeler became convinced that "the blessing that the AAAS had bestowed on pseudoscience was ... a consequence of the Vietnam Era, and it was time to undo it" needs rephrasing. Suggested wording: "In 1979, physicist John A. Wheeler argued that the affiliation of the PA to the AAAS was based on outdated ideas of science and needed to be reconsidered." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, parapsychology is a science and it looks like the Arbitration Committee here at Wikipedia would also agree that Irwin is providing a factual portrayal...not an 'attempt' to create a false impression of the field. Few (if any) of the sources used in this article are impartial. I can support your efforts for more neutral wording, however, parapsychologists don't 'see' the convention as an opportunity. They actually attend these things. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the arb decision only affirmed that parapsychology uses scientific methods, not that it was patently science the same way that chemistry is a science. Antelan is correct, it's not the truth of the passage Annalisa, it is the reliability and independence of the source. It in no way meets the criteria of WP:RS. You seem to be forgetting that we use impartial sources like the PA or critics only to verify assertions about themselves, not about general facts. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Irwin is a psychology professor at the University of New England where he teaches courses on psychopathology. The book itself is a college textbook geared toward social scientists and its in its 6th printing. According to Wikipedia guidelines, it qualifies as a secondary source. If we want to start splitting hairs, then a lot of the sources used in the criticism section will need to go.

Also, according to your argument above, psychology isn't a science either...in fact, no study of behavior would be considered 'science' if we were using chemistry as a measure. The 'soft sciences' are sciences nonetheless. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)