Talk:Parapsychology/archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Merging of Controversy in parapsychology page

I vote a simple redirect as this page already neutrally covers the controversy. If there's any major ideas over there that are not already covered here, they can be integrated. At first glance (without reading through it all the way), I didn't see any.

I'd also like to see other orphaned pages about parapsychology slimmed up or summarized and integrated as well, especially if they aren't standalone pages. Psi (parapsychology) would be a standalone page, but lists like List of basic parapsychology topics and List of parapsychologists aren't really necessary. Research results in parapsychology, Fraud in parapsychology, Psiology (<-- possible delete as a neologism), etc. can all be redirected here.

Some of the things that are redirected here should redirect to Psychic. Among these are the misspelled Pshycic powers, but also Psychic children, Psychic ability, etc.

There's probably some that I'm missing, but these should probably be tightened up. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merger. But don't forget to adequately add in the relevant information from those articles into this article if it's not already here. We don't want to delete relevant information in order to merge them. Try to condense them into sections so they can be added to this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, relevant information should be integrated. I'd add that it should be notable information (to keep with the slimmed summarization style). For example, there's a mention of Gambling over there. That would be more like a rhetorical "oh, and another thing" rather than an actual noteworthy idea in the controversy. I'd hate to see everything copied over because it still reads as "criticism" and "response" which is exactly the sort of thing the article was rewritten to avoid. Most of the stuff over there is already covered in the criticism section here, just not as bulky.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, you should discuss a proposed merge on the talk page of the article to be merged, not on the talk of article it will be merged into. Second, what Nealparr has proposed is not a merge. It is effectively deletion. If you want to remove all the content, then you need to propose a second AFD. The main parapsychology article does not cover even most of the topics covered in the current controversy article, so any argument about duplicate content is nix. The controversy article is too large to just dump into this article without removing essential content, and the amount of content therein is too much to place in this article. The controversy article is not small enough to merit a merge purely on length grounds. A controversy/criticism content fork is one of the most common and useful splits that happens in articles all over Wikipedia. VanTucky 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, first off the "discuss" link on this article led here. I could care less about the other article, even if it is deleted. Second, I did leave a link over there saying there's another discussion here to be helpful. That aside, what essential information is over there that isn't already over here? Most of it is a criticism section. In that criticism section are topics that are already covered in this article's criticism section (and covered better because there's no POV back and forth). I don't want to remove content. I'm saying the content is already here. If there's something that isn't generally covered here, and is notable, it should be copied over. I never said it shouldn't be.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Whether you care about the article or not is of no consequence. The policy and process set up for deletion of articles is not something you can circumvent at a whim. It is a very serious breach of the policy and guidelines of Wikipedia to delete an article that has already undergone one AFD process with zero upfront discussion about the proposed deletion. Proposing a merge is not a sufficient substitute for a complete deletion process as outlined in WP:Deletion.
As to your claim that Controversy is simply duplicate content, Controversy covers sections on a different analysis of alleged fraud, in-depth criticisms of parapsychology's methods, results, replicability, the assumption of psi, statistical signifigance, conditions in which experiments are conducted, and more detailed discussion of the allegations of pseudoscience. All the detailed content and sources on those subjects are not duplicated in this article. If you so insist, I can bring the entire sections I'm speaking of here, but that might be too big to be workable. Simply read the sections that are titled as above. Furthermore, on a simply practical basis as outlined in WP:SIZE, the current Parapsych article is 43KB long. This current length alone may merit a review for more splitting, not less. Most admins and editors who do splits commonly fork content just after 32KB of length. With adding the entire 15KB of unique information from Controversy, that would bring the article up to 58KB. Which clearly is clearly ripe for splitting. VanTucky 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason you're all worked up? I just expressed my opinion on the matter, which resulted in you first jumping on me saying I'm talking in the wrong place. Now you're now saying I'm trying to "circumvent at a whim" AfD policies? Dude, check the history [1]. It used to redirect to this article anyway before Antelan reinstalled the old copy on 16 June. It already pointed here.
Again, I said... relevant information can be copied over. They call that a merge. It is my opinion that there's not much additional information to copy over that's not already covered generally here. That's why it said more like a redirect. The in-depth, detailed discussion is not necessary in an encyclopedia. If you disagree, that's fine. You can express your opinion without saying I'm trying to cheat guidelines and policies.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nealparr, that we just need to integrate the major points, into this article, if there are any which aren't already covered. Then redirect. We do not want to delete, but redirect when major points are covered in this article. This article can have a larger controversy section than most, because of the nature of the subject. If we are going to fork content on this article, I suggest we fork the less controversial parts, and keep the more controversial ones in the main article, where they aren't probably so subject to everyone adding their favorite arguments. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep it over there, reinstall the redirect to here like it was before, put it up for AfD. Whatever. I just ask that people check the history before getting on my case.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
An in-depth discussion isn't necessary in an encyclopedia? Are you shitting me? From Encyclopedia,
“ An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. ”
Wikipedia is here to provide as much verifiable, detailed information on a topic as does exist. If you think it isn't, you might be in the wrong place pal. You seem to be arguing not that the information in Controversy belongs expressly here, but that it doesn't belong anywhere at all. What specifically of those many topics covered in the controversy is covered here? The fact that some of the ideas (such as claims of bad methodology and pseudoscience) are simply acknowledged here is not a duplication. The controversy article then goes into detail on these criticisms and several others. The criticism section exists as an introduction to the deeper coverage in the split article, which is something expressly described as necessary by the guidelines for splitting articles. The fact that a cursory intro of the fact that people make those criticisms is not a duplicate to a discussion of the substance and reasons given in the Controversy article. Removing the detailed content of what those criticisms are would be a direct violation of NPOV. VanTucky 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you be willing to see if there are any points not covered in the current article (I mean, ones which actually need coverage)? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if there is content you feel is unfit for inclusion you need to bring up on the Controversy article, not by a merge. Merging means to merge all the factual content of an article, not cherry-picking. If you mean give examples of content that is unique in the controversy article, see my list of topics above. VanTucky 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
And as to special size considerations, this article is not an exception to the style guidelines set forth in WP:SIZE, 58KB is too big. As to removing other content to include the entirety of Controversy's coverage, there are no other complete topical sections that are as large as the Controversy article. Nothing else needs splitting. VanTucky 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the article adds nothing new. If you feel it is does, then you express your opinion without being a WP:DICK. Instead of expressing your opinion, you instead attack me and say I'm trying to cheat the system. Maybe you don't understand the difference between deletion and redirect. Deletion requires an admin, consensus, and is permanent. It has a difficult process for restoration. Redirect retains the information as before and can be restored by any editor who feels there is a reason to, as in the case of Antelan who thought it should be revived. It is nothing at all like "circumvent[ing] at a whim" policies. If you stop being a WP:DICK, then we can talk about your actual points. I'm getting really tired of the hostility. To your actual point, you have a case for keeping it. Convince others and keep it. I really don't care. I've expressed my opinion. I still think that way. You don't actually need to convince me, you need to convince others who do care.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't call me a dick for attacking what I saw as policy circumvention. Read WP:NPA, a criticism of someone's actions as being against policy is not a personal attack. And I have continued to say anything about it, so let it go. I'm not saying you're got bad intentions for the article or are stupid. Removing a large amount of content from an article, not merging it into the other article, and then placing a redirect is a deletion of content. I obviously didn't mean a complete erasure of the article's placeholder and history. That's not what a redirect does. But most importantly, hostility to a merge is not hostility to you. Don't take my passion for advocating an interpretation of policy personally. VanTucky 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was full of quotations which don't belong in Wikipedia. I'm trying to get rid of them in favor of a well-sourced summary. VanTucky is reverting to keep some of them in. There is no reason for the article. The controversy should be kept in this page, and should be extremely brief but extremely well-sourced. As to the size suggestion, we can go over it if we need to. Many pages do. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, discussions of content present now in the article which you feel shouldn't be is for elsewhere. The dispute is over whether to merge the content there now into this one unaltered. Your feeling that the critcism of Parapsychology should not go into detail is unfortunately not inline with NPOV. The mainstream criticisms of parapsychology as outlined in the split article deserve just as much detail as the main study of parapsychology itself, that is what NPOV means. Equal, balanced coverage. Not a cursory overview. VanTucky 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I won't call you a WP:DICK : ) I'm just weary of hostility here. I will say you're wrong. This: "Nealparr and Martinphi keep trying to use a merge as excuse to delete legit criticisms found in the Controversy article, besides that the main article is big already per WP:SIZE"[2] simply isn't true. I personally want all notable criticisms in this article, without unnecessary wordiness, because that will let readers know all they need to know about the topic. I specifically said copy over what isn't here already. If you feel this article is leaving something out. Add it. If you feel there is too much to add, summarize it here and go indepth in the Controvery article. That's all fine. My opinion was that I feel this article is a good enough summary of the controversy (most of the article is about the controversy) and that articles don't need to be an exhaustive "book" about the subject. The style I'm advocating is a slimmed summarized version. I'm not trying to delete legitimate criticisms. There's three things you say I'm doing and none of them are true. 1) Nothing deleted, but summarized, 2) Encyclopedias don't cover every thought imaginable and do in fact summarize the notables, 3) Nothing deleted but instead summarized does not mean any of the POVs are lost. Now that all of that is out of the way (I'm not advocating deletion of POVs), the issue is really to summarize or not. I feel less is more. If you disagree, that's fine because it's just a style issue.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
When you ask me to include any information on controversies and criticisms of parapsychology not in the article, I would respond by including all of the content of Controversy in parapsychology. But this is not possible because of the very clear considerations to article length we are admonished to observe.
When detailed discussions of a topic exists (as in Controversy) it is Wikipedia's purpose to include them, and not having a split article for Controvery in parapsychology and summarization within sections is a failure to present all the information availiable on the topic. Which again, is Wikipedia's goal. Comprehensiveness. If the information on that topic is too large to both keep comprehensiveness (our primary goal) and have the article meet the clear length guidelines, it is never preferred to remove comprehensive information on a topic just to cram it in the article. A failure to provide comprehensive information on criticisms of parapsychology is a violation of NPOV because it fails to fully discuss legitimate (legit as in, legit to include per notability) points of view. Simply acknowledging the list of criticisms exist when detailed information on the reasons, motivations and response to the criticism is available is unacceptable. VanTucky 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Two separate things my friend. One is comprehensiveness, the other is neutrality. If all points of view are summarized it is not a neutrality issue. All topics in this article are summarized, whether they are positive, neutral, or negative. It's arguably a comprehensiveness issue, but not a neutrality issue. There's a great deal of expansion that can be done in this article, but it would be a mind-numbing, exhaustive, fall asleep in the middle of it experience. There's over one-hundred years of detail we could get into. That's just my opinion though. The NPOV part is not opinion, that's a fact. It is not a NPOV issue to summarize all points of view. No point of view is expanded on more than another in this article. Even the neutral historical point of view (the bulk of the article) is summarized.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


So, criticism of, say, the field of Mathematics deserves as much space as the article on Math itself? Get serious. Criticism deserves a bit more space in parapsychology, but not nearly as much as the subject itself. We need to keep the criticisms in the articles on topics themselves (such as the Ganzfeld, or Psychokinesis).

What I've been doing is summarizing, and taking out the wordiness. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about literal "space", space is not an issue on Wikipedia. And obviously, the information simply about Parapsychology is much more (43KB) than the Controversy article (15KB). But when enough information on any certain aspect (whether it is History or Criticism) of a subject to create a split exists, we do not just delete the content so as not to have a split. This is especially true when concerned with opposing viewpoints. And if more information on the criticisms of Mathematics than the Math article actually occurred, it would be perfectly fine. And large deletions of topics altogether in the Controversy article is not "removing wordiness". VanTucky 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Split is fine. I don't think it's necessary, but if you do go for it. But you're talking about neutrality now. It's not a neutrality issue to summarize. Parapsychology being (43KB) versus Controversy (15KB) doesn't mean that parapsychology "wins". Parapsychology is partly larger because it regurgitates much of the Controversy article but also includes the history (neutral), labs (neutral), what the do (worded neutrally) and outside links (neutral). It's not a byte competition and neutrality isn't achieved through file size.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 22:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
43 KB. That's actually what my first post in this thread is talking about. 43 KB isn't a whole lot, but it's certainly enough to cover something that isn't all that noteworthy in science or psychology, but has an interesting history. Sure size doesn't matter at Wikipedia, but at what point do you say enough disk space has been spent on this not so notable topic? That's why I'm advocating roping in some of the orphaned articles. They really aren't necessary.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Great, so you agree with me that the criticism section should be much smaller (as parapsychology is not its critics- there are 4 or 6 main scientific critics, and a lot of parapsychologists). Now, if a summary of the controversy (which is what an encyclopedia provides) turns out to be small enough to put in the main article, then what's the problem? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that is not what I said. And you're discussing what merits inclusion in the Controversy article again, which is not what this is about. Separate subject. But just for the record, outside criticisms of a field create controversy, thus they and the responses deserve mention in a discussion of controversies. There is no policy/guideline in Wikipedia that says criticism of a subject or controversy surrounding it must be smaller than encyclopedic information on the topic itself. Honestly, I can't see why you would feel like it has to be that way, unless you feel it's necessary to keep criticism to minimum to inflate the subject for a reader. And just as a side note here Martin, it isn't exactly a great idea to be advocating deletion of criticisms of a subject (even if you're possibly right) when you're the subject of a review for POV-pushing on the subject. VanTucky 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky, would you please stop pushing so hard? Would you please stop edit warring? And please notice that 1. I'm not deleting any significant and current criticisms, and 2. I wrote that article in the first place, including nearly all the criticisms. So please stop being a disruptive editor. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't delete information from the to be merged article until it's merged. Merge the articles adding only the most relevant information. Problem solved. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And talk about the content, not the contributor. Do you really think that saying that someone else edit warred, even if manifestly unilateral, which it is not in this case, is going to help improve this article? Antelan talk 03:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Our WP:NPOV policy is pretty clear that there is no need to give equal time to both sides, but that the coverage of a topic should not in any way give a slanted version to readers. Skimping out on the controrsy parts, and not letting people know right away that parapsychology is not considered reputable by most scientists is a major slant that confuses readers into thinking it is more well regarded than it is, thus giving the pro-paranormal side undue weight. Many of the comments above seem to want to give the topic more respectability by keeping the controversy section of this article very small. I don't know how bad the current article is (the biggest problem -- the totally deceptive psychology templates -- were removed by me), but I am concerned from the tone of comments that people are trying to hide parapsychology's poor reputation from the world. DreamGuy 03:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, if you read the parapsychology article, it does come down on parapsychology. There's no other way to interpret it. It doesn't come down hard, for neutrality reasons, but it does come down. The whole thing is themed that it is a fringe science that isn't accepted by mainstream science. All of this "it doesn't cover the criticism" stuff is not true at all. Parapsychology is, however, an accepted area of transpersonal psychology, hence the psychology templates. There are several parapsychology labs in psychology departments. Some parapsychological studies make it into the Psychology Bulletin. And so on.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 04:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some conflation of "admits that parapsychology isn't totally accepted" and "comes down on parapsychology". Also, those parapsychology labs in the US have started closing, which I've begun to catalog. Antelan talk 04:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get into another one of those long conflation discussions : ) Can we at least agree that it doesn't promote parapsychology? I mean people are talking like it's pro-parapsychology. On a sliding scale between 1 and 10, parapsychology is less than 5 in this article, as it appropriately should be.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
My comments above were not necessarily about the status of the article as it stood at the time but to warn people that some comments above about changes they wanted clearly expressed the wish to try to go easy on parapsychology. Also, the templates to psychology (two of them even!) were clearly out of line and a blatant attempt to try to make the field look far more respectable thatn it is. Thhose templates have nothing to do with parapsychology, and there's nothing on them at all that relates to the content of this article. DreamGuy 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You said, "Parapsychology is, however, an accepted area of transpersonal psychology, hence the psychology templates.".
That article says, "Transpersonal psychology is sometimes confused with parapsychology, a mistake made due to the overlapping and unconventional research interests of both fields." I see a conflict between your rationale and the understanding from that article. Hey, on the plus side, the authors of that article called the methods of parapsychology scientific. Antelan talk 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hence not psychology, psychology ctegory and templates are HUGE violations of WP:NPOV policy, so I have removed them aagain. DreamGuy 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Look, guys, don't pin it all on me. There's a lot of references in the article dealing with psychology and parapsychology and linking the two. It takes an argument to unlink them because sources do in fact link them. It's not necessarily right to remove the templates when they are sourced as best you can do with templates. If you do want to pin it all on me : ), the part I was referring to in the transpersonal psychology article is this:
"The transpersonal perspective spans many research interests. The following list is adapted from Scotton, Chinen and Battista (1996) and includes"
Parapsychology is in the list. There's also other sources if you need them. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing, the smart and easy way

When claims are referenced in most Wikipedia articles, there is a numbered link to an endnote containing the reference. That an article may deviate from this pattern is understandable, but why this article does so is confusing. This is a topic that is extremely hot-button, so one would think that we would want each statement to be as specific and well-referenced as possible. However, that is not the case here.

Furthermore, this article is rife with external links throughout the body. In fact, one of the references that I cited via <ref> tags was turned into an external link by another editor. Why is this being done? Antelan talk 19:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I made it an inline citation Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Embedded_links so I wouldn't have to add yet another thing to the reference section, just for an external link note. The link didn't show up when it was <ref>. The rifing of external links throughout the body is really only in two sections. I went to fix those but stopped short when I realized that I couldn't just remove the links because in a way they are the source for the text. Removing it would leave the text unsourced. The reason I haven't fixed that just yet is because I haven't figured out how.
I wouldn't mind going back to the <ref> because it is easier. The problem I forsee with that is the {{fact}} tag being used inappropriately again. Instead of [1] being the reference for the paragraph as proper, it will end up being some text [1] some text [1] some text [1] when [1] is for the entire paragraph.
Either way though. Just someone else do it. If you don't like it, please accept the burden of changing it.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 19:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing stopping anyone from wrongly using a fact tag right now. Also, I agree that we can't just cut the links, since they are also sources. The <ref> tags will show up if we include a footnotes section (it just requires <references/>). I will change this, but I wanted to include it for discussion first because I'm tired of people WP:OWNing the articles I'm trying to improve and reverting reasonable changes. For those reading this: if this doesn't sound like something you've done, then I'm definitely not talking about you. Antelan talk 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, there was no corresponding <references/> and I didn't include one because I thought we were doing the APA thing. If you make the changes, I'll support the change. I understand Annalisa's reasoning and in a normal web article I would personally use the APA style. Here I just don't think it's practical.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
With numbered citations you can cite a source for a whole paragraph or for a single sentence if you choose. If someone adds a "fact" tag then you simply revert it and explain in the revert why it's already sourced. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

When we first started working on the draft of this article's rewrite, we questioned whether we should be using WP:FOOT or WP:HARV. I left a notice on this talk page inviting anyone who was interested to come over to my sandbox and discuss it. At the sandbox discussion, we did something of a straw poll, and there were no strong objections (only one person voted), so I carried on with WP:HARV. Antelan, I personally invited you to take a whack at the sandbox draft before Nealparr installed it here. I find it very interesting (to put it lightly) that these kinds of objections are being raised after all of those opportunities were ignored. I've already argued why Harvard referencing is the better system for this article elsewhere, so I'm not going to waste my time doing it again here. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 00:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning merger...

I want to get a good idea of who supports this merger and who doesn't. Without adding any arguments for or against the merger just tell me whether you support or oppose the merger. This isn't a vote of any kind to determine the outcome, simply a straw poll to see who supports it right now and who doesn't. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

support- Wikidudeman (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
support if merging means to merge all the factual content of the article rather than cherry-picking. - LuckyLouie 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
support with LuckLouie's suggestion. In fact, I would go further and say let someone else other than Martinphi or myself choose what is already here and what isn't, so there's no question about it. Sad that I have to say that, but apparently I have to. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
support?:I'm not sure about the difference between a merger and a redirect. I think a redirect would be better. The criticism section in place is very general in order avoid turning into a criticism-response type of section. If we can maintain the current feel of the criticism section, then I'm all for it. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
support as a general principle that WP:FORK files are bad. DreamGuy 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Support Slimmed down to essential and current points, and without the quotes. Nealparr has it right that the debate is endless, and where is the stopping point? I was wrong to write this as I did, because there is no logical stopping place in the discussion. We need to just mention (with sources) the essential arguments, and leave it at that. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Odling-Smee, 2007)

It seems odd that an article with such a long, long list of references constantly refers to (Odling-Smee, 2007) over and over again. Can't we spread the references around? What's with this one article that makes it such an influence on virtually every section, sometimes mere sentences apart? DreamGuy 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to find a way it can be accessed by internet users or else find a better source. We need to get a link for it and reference it properly. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Come on, that's not a requirement that it must be on the accessible on the web. There's plenty of books, etc. cited at Wikipedia. The reason it is used so much is because it's the most recent article about this stuff that's appeared in the mainstream periodical Nature. It's from Feb. 2007 and talks about the closing of the PEAR lab. It also talks about the varying opinions over the research. That's why it's used so much. It's relevant. It looks like it's used a lot, but that's just because it's used a lot for the intro. That's because the topic of this article (parapsychology as not accepted by mainstream) deals with the topic of the other article at Nature. Here's a copy I wasn't supposed to have uploaded. It's verbatim, you can check with Antelan as he has an original.[3]
--Nealparr (talk to me) 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It's here. Even though it documents the lab's closing, there's a slightly sympathetic overtone, e.g. "is parapsychology treated unfairly?". - LuckyLouie 21:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's clearly apologetic. The title of the article is "The lab that asked the wrong questions". Wrong questions? Try "The lab that got no results". I don't believe it should be excluded because it's POV but I also don't believe it should be used to cite anything important and I believe it's definitely used far too much in this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There was a big debate about this earlier. Nealparr and I respectfully and mutually disagree with each other about how this article represents the "pro" "neutal" and "con" positions in parapsychology. At any rate, it is a journalistic piece reporting on a scientific debate, and as such it may suffer from presenting unequal sides equally. Nevertheless, it's much more neutral than most other articles on this subject matter that I have seen. Antelan talk 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, big disagreement, I conceded gave up, and it is journalistic. I don't think it's apologetic, however, and neutrally describes the current relevant controversy. I think it's definitely reliable by Wikipedia standards, especially for outlining why we're talking about, parapsychology's scientific status. I don't think it's apologetic because it clearly describes parapsychology as failed, deprecated, or unworthwhile.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not that big of a deal right now. Let's focus on the merger if we can. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that it's not germane here, but you and I never agreed on which positions outlined in the article were pro/neutral/con, and you certainly never conceded. This is demonstrated at the Subtle POV revisited section on this very page. Antelan talk 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, gave up is more the right word. Is that relevant? --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I staked out Position A, which maintained that the portion of the Nature journalism piece most favorable to parapsychology was being used. You staked out Position B, which maintained that the portion of the Nature journalism piece least favorable to parapsychology was being used. Neither of us budged, and consequently nothing was changed. You call this "giving up"? It could only be "giving up" to the same extent that I also gave up. And I've already said it's not relevant, but accurate representation is important to me so I'm explaining this here. Antelan talk 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The disagreement was whether or not the article said that the methods of parapsychologists were scientific. I said that it either implied that or said it clearly. This disagreement centered on the removal of words to that effect in this article. The words are still removed. I didn't put them back in. I gave up on the conversation and recommended adding it to the ArbCom or not per your discretion. Position A, position B, I don't know what you're talking about. The position I took you said doesn't even exist in the article, so I don't know how it could be either an A or a B.--Nealparr (talk to me) 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this better explains it. In the part where we were talking about pro, con, and middle views, I was only talking about the methodologies, not the overall view of the work of parapsychologists (results, conclusions, etc.). As you may recall, I mentioned that distinction and tried to get you to see that the article made the distinction. That ship has sailed, but now, when speaking of the work of parapsychologists, if you read the Nature article closely there are actually four views.
View 1: Parapsychology is worth pursuing (Chris French, pro).
View 2: Parapsychology is a waste of time, unscientific (Robert Park, negative).
View 3: Parapsychology should ask these questions, but give up after awhile (William Happer).
View 4 is that "In the end, the decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws is a subjective one." In other words, which of the three views you choose is subjective. That is the neutral point of view. In your pro, con, middle statements, you completely skipped over view 1 and listed view 4 as the pro.
Now, that's not to say all three views are equal according to weight. The article also covers that mainstream science does generally see that it is a waste of time. Not necessarily that the work is unscientific, but that it is a waste of time. That is a sort of fifth view framing the other views in terms of parapsychology's status. That is neutral because it's a status view, unopposed by other views. In other words there's no one saying parapsychology is widely accepted.
So the combined neutral view from that article is that the decision whether or not to pursue parapsychology is subjective, but that mainstream science considers it a waste of time.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 01:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Nealparr, are you really going to characterize our disagreement like that? I thought we had both agreed that we were reasonable - if I have to restate the entire argument, I'm going to be really disappointed. The way that you have explained the disagreement really ignores my position. I know you're not happy with the status of the article, but I'm equally unhappy with it. Antelan talk 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you're reasonable, but the only thing I can truly agree with is that it doesn't seem like we can agree on much of anything : ) The disagreement, at least form my point of view, was about the removal of the words, my perceived shift of the POV, and whether or not the article at Nature said scientific methodologies. If you think it was about something else, sorry man, I really don't know where you're coming from. That's what all my posts were about. I apologize if I didn't explain my points correctly or something, but that's what they were. As far as your position goes, I can't speak for you. Above, where I said you skipped over view 1, I didn't say that was intentional. This should be considered a new conversation anyway. Here I am talking about the status of how parapsychology is viewed by mainstream science. The previous discussion was just about the methodologies pertaining to that one edit. The question now is whether this is an appropriate source for the article and what does it say about the work (results, conclusions, etc.). It's a new topic. Sorry if I am not explaining this clearly. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Linking

Please could we have some other people weigh in on the matter before this turns into an edit war? According to my reading of WP:EL, it is entirely appropriate for an article about parapsychology to contain links to the homepages its major organizations, academic labs, and journals. Dream Guy apparantly disagrees. Let's talk about it. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL is for the External links section, not for the body of an article. Furthermore, WP:EL says major, not a big huge long list of every one you can think of. The current External links section is way, way too long. Wikipedia is not a web directory. DreamGuy 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to the external links list, if you are looking for big long lists of every one I can think of, look here, here and here...and even then, I left off a lot of stuff.
The links in the body of the article are links to the major organizations. Not only that, but those links function as citations. Remove those, and we're just dropping names without sourcing them.
Obviously, we are discussing two different matters here, so which one would you like to tackle first?--Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 05:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you could have added even more links in no way is a justification for the ones you put here. Those links do not function as citations. This is a rather straightforward matter, and pretty clearly spelled out. We do not serve as a directory of links to websites. We only pick the most suitable and encyclopedic links, and we put those in External links. Any that do not fit are up to someone to go Google. This article is not here to promote all these websites. DreamGuy 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, which matter are we discussing, the external links list, or the embedded links in the articles? There are different rules governing each of them. You seem to be lumping both issues together. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't even get what you are trying to say here, other than you seem to be easily confused by citations and external links and can't seem to talk about both at the same time and still keep them straight.
The edits you made to the external links section were awful, by the way. You just sort of claimed you were cleaning them up and then sneaked the Psychology category back in and left a deceptive edit comment. Then you managed to remove all the most scholarly links on the page and left a bunch of bad ones, still WAYYYYY too many for an external links section, and then took it upon yourself to remove the external links tag. I'm finding it difficult to believe you could have made those changes in good faith, especially the stealth readdition of the improper and POV-pushing category. I would suggest you not try to pull such nonsense in the future. DreamGuy 10:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, there are at least two other editors who have been editing the links in the last 24 hours. I pared down the links list from 22 links to 13 links and removed the tag. Since then, others have reverted my changes and done who knows what. I'm trying to be cooperative here. You might want to examine the changes that have been made and perhaps pin those accusations above on someone else. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh wait...I do take full credit for putting the psychology category back in, and soon as I'm done with my morning coffee, I'm going to make sure it's still there. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 17:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin, is there some reason you removed the skeptical links from the article but labeled your edit summary "Putting references above external links, etc"? - LuckyLouie 00:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious I was reverting DreamGuy's trolling. The summary was meant to state what else I was doing at the time. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If anybody would like to put all the links back to the way they were before we had our little troll visit, I'd be all for it. I don't know the ropes well enough to put it back without messing up something else. I think we were all happier with the links before I made the mistake of trying to cooperate with his demands. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 01:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology and Psychology

Dream Guy, please explain to me why you insist that parapsychology has nothing to do with psychology. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to have absolutely nothing to do with psychology. Some small minor part of parapsychology studies would be psychology, yes. In order for the templates to be here parapsychology as a whole, as covered by this article, would have to be recognized by experts in the field as being a significant ("notable" in Wikipedia jargon) part of psychology. Otherwise having that here is deceptive, and a violation of NPOV policy because it gives readers an entirely incorrect idea of the nature of this topic. DreamGuy 04:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Parapsychology is an academic study that is largely practiced by psychologists in universities (i.e. 'experts'). Paranormal studies is something else entirely. You used the term 'parapsychology studies' here, and frankly, that's the first time I've heard of such a thing, which makes me question how you are defining the field and your level of familiarity with it. As far as wikipedia goes, parapsychology is listed a topic in psychology here and WikiProject:Psychology has found it to be a notable topic for their efforts [4]. Perhaps we should invite some of those editors to chime in? --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. "parapsychology studies" isn't something to hear of, it's a phrase taking the word studies onto the word parapsychology... as in studies (experiments) done in parapsychology... how can you not have heard of that? It's just basic English. And the idea that you are trying to dismiss my comments entirely based upon you not understanding a simple phrase is just ludicrous. As far as the mention in psychology, any random person can run through and do that, that's in no way authoritative. You can't cite some random edit by random unreliable Wikipedian as a reliable source, that's circular reasoning. Frankly, your belligerence over this issue and attempt at character assassination shows why you are currently undergoing arbitration for massive POV-pushing. DreamGuy 06:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Annalisa's not a part of that arbitration [5], has never been up for any massive POV-pushing -- that's Martinphi : ) -- and she's also fairly new. Try to take that into account and don't WP:BITE, please. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, she is a part of that arbitration, and, frankly, I'm not sure what I should think about someone who ran his own magazine advocating the topic trying to claim that another person who is clearly advocating the topic from her own involvement as listed on her user page trying to claim that she's not POV pushing, and not involved in a dispute she clearly is involved in. And the POV here is pretty obvious... she removed all the skeptical external links from the main page, left all the pro-parapsychology ones, and seems to want to try to play games with definitions of common words to try to question *other people's* competence. That's clearly out of line. DreamGuy 10:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
She's not a party in the arbitration and your claim was that she was undergoing arbitration for massive pov-pushing. That's just not true. That's Martinphi and a few others, but not Annalisa. You also didn't do your homework. My magazine was a news magazine with a skeptical slant, nothing near advocacy. An example of my writing style is the (incomplete) paranormal article, which was mostly compiled/written by myself. Notice it doesn't advocate paranormal as scientific and separates scientific claims (surveys) from unscientific ones (anecdotal story collecting). My news magazine was the latter with a slightly skeptical commentary. The only thing that was asked is for you not to WP:BITE newer editors. You can constructively give advice on neutrality without jumping all over people.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 15:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The term 'parapsychology studies' would describe a discipline of studying the field of parapsychology. Perhaps what you meant was 'parapsychological studies'...i.e...the study of parapsychological topics? My point above was that psychology editors at Wikipedia seem to recognize parapsychology as a related topic, so perhaps this happens in the real world as well. You seem to have your mind made up what 'parapsychology studies' is, and those ideas appear have little relation to reality. So frankly, this conversation is probably a waste of my valuable time. And Nealparr is right, I am not a part of the ArbCom case, but you get points for making another unfounded assumption. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't even get how someone could make that argument. Do you not speak English? Parapsychology studies would be studies within the field of parapsychology, not OF parapsychology. It's the same structure (at least grammatically, if not qualitatively) with psychology studies. Psychology studies are studies within the field of psychology, not of the field itself. This is pretty basic stuff here. You certainly aren't one to be talking about reality. DreamGuy 10:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main image for the article

I'm looking for a good candidate for a main image for my draft of the parapsychology article rewrite. An image that can be placed at the very top right beside the first paragraphs that basically is defined by parapsychology or has a lot to do with it. Any ideas? You might be able to find a fair use or public domain one one Google or somewhere. Try to find me one. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What about a Kirlian photograph? They are quite distinctive. VanTucky 04:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Kirlian is a totally debunked notion. Just use this: (image of cards) Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sign your name martin. I removed the image because it messed up formating on the talk page.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe some other distinctive image would work better than Zener cards. Something nice looking. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Good luck : ) I wanted to find some good ones myself and all I came up with were the ones that are already there. I couldn't even find one of Rhine that I was sure would be OK from a copyright standpoint. The Zener cards are historically and popularly associated with parapsychology, so that's what I would recommend. Parapsychologists became interested in Kirlian photography in the 1970s and became disinterested in the 1970s as well, so I would skip that. If you can find a fair use one of the PEAR ball slots, that's what I wanted to use.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 04:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This image [6], but not the entire office, just the ball slots. The idea behind that experiment is that the balls drop and and are supposed to form a bell shape, and psychokinesis changes that or something. Bit of trivia : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Since PEAR, where I believe Nealparr's photo is from, is defunct but the person running the place believes he proved his point, that may be a perfect photo agreeable by all sides. Antelan talk 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You'd have to find another version of it though. That one's from the Nature article about the PEAR closing, copyright. I'm sure there's something out there similar, but I don't really know. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. Antelan talk 04:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
So I should use the Cards then? Try to find a good fair use or public domain image on Google or Altavista or something that I can use. If you all can't find one I guess I'll just use the cards. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for sources

As you all know, I'm drafting up a rewrite of this article that I believe all sides will be happy with however what I want is some sources to use, preferably websites or scientific case studies. If anyone has any sources at all they think should be added to the new re-write please post them here in links. PRO parapsychology, ANTI parapsychology or simply neutral, it doesn't matter. Just post them here and I'll try to integrate them into the article. Please search for some new ones if you don't have any already, The more people searching the better. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

C'mon people. :) Wikidudeman (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Gotta see the sandbox, then source what's there first. - LuckyLouie 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Where is this draft at? I think that both of these chapters would contribute good general material for the lead and criticism sections: a recent article by James Alcock in the Journal of Consciousness Studies and this chapter in Harvey Irwin's Introduction to Parapsychology. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice sources, Annalisa, and very appropriate. Also IMO, the APA citation style is more suitable for noncontentious subjects like The History Of Pine Nuts. As discussed above, it probably isn't suited for a controversial article such as Parapsychology. - LuckyLouie 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
@ Wikidudeman. I understand the frustration of trying to merge articles, but time out for a sec. How much of a change are we talking about? I thought we were just talking about an introduction of new material that wasn't already covered, not a serious rewrite. Because if we are talking about a massive rewrite I now have to defend what is there now. What is there now is already sourced. That rewrite took months and was based on the 2005-2007 conversations on this talk page and the ongoing ArbCom addressing as many concerns as possible that were raised by multiple editors who have come and gone. One of the issues was reliabilty of sources. Here and at the ArbCom, even the journals of parapsychologists were questioned as reliable. That is exactly why it took months to write. The majority of the sources in the article now were painstakenly chosen because they were only the mainstream ones, because of the past conversations. It was my understanding that we were only bringing in information from the Controversy article that wasn't already covered. That's necessary because we don't want to exclude anything important, but even that's hard to reconcile based on past conversations. The Nature article here was chosen because it is a mainstream source and covers other points raised in these conversations, like the "status" of parapsychology. There were long conversations about that and people had trouble finding a mainstream source that covered the status. User Guy found this, introduced it at the ArbCom, and now that issue was resolved. But that's even being challenged as unreliable because it is a news article. This is very confusing to me because that's being talked about being excluded when virtually all of the Controversy article, pro- and con- are sourced to editorial pieces from non-mainstream sources.
To a massive rewrite introducing any and all sources, I have to again wonder where's the cutoff? The current article mostly covers mainstream stuff (the notables). If we go and introduce anything and everything, like I said I have a 2000 page encyclopedia here covering all the pros, cons, and neutrals. More importantly, I have to say we have to go back and look at the archives again and see what points were raised and what we've done to address them. Otherwise we're just going around in circles, a two year circle so far. We might be able to make everyone who is actively participating in this conversation right now happy, but a month or two down the road someone new is going to be raising the issue of too much information, unreliable sources, and editorializing all over again. I know this because I've watched it happen repeatedly for two years now : ) You've seen it happen as well.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a massive rewrite. 95% of the sources in the article already will be used. It's simply a rewrite to cut down on redundant material and improve the look and flow of the article. I'll post it here before I make any changes to the actual article for criticism. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I should add that I am not questioning your ability to draft "up a rewrite of this article that I believe all sides will be happy with". I'm cynical that there is such a thing that everyone past, present, and future will actually be happy with. There are some folks who want it to be a whitewash of parapsychology and others who want it to be an article about how bad pseudoscience is with parapsychology as a poster child. A compromise by definition doesn't leave anyone completely happy. I'd personally be happy if it looked like the astrology article, a fair treatment of a controversial topic.--Nealparr (talk to me) 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
^speaking of which, I'm mostly into the history section. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
When we do this rewrite, let's not have it under someone's personal talk space. There's no reason no to have a prominent link at the top of this talk page and host the article in a "sub folder" under this talk page. This will maximize the eyes that see it before it gets rolled out. Antelan talk 18:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree Antelan. When Wikidudeman is ready, copy it to a subfolder here and let folks have a look at it/discuss for a few days (to take into account people's busy schedules) before it's installed. I think we can at least agree that the current version isn't in an urgent state that requires immediate action. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The main problem is people randomly adding and removing hunks of material until the article loses all of it's value and we're back where we started. What I'm going to do when I am finished is link it here from my sub-page for everyone to comment on without actually editing it. People can add comments towards it and I can change it to suit their criticisms. Once we all agree on the article then we can switch it over and go ahead with the mergers. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point, and I agree with that too. Considering the sensitive nature, I think we can all agree to discuss changes on the subfolder's talk page and reach a general consensus before editing. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep it on my sub-page until we decide to turn it to the article. We can discuss it here and I can make the respective changes that are requested after relevant discussion so that edit wars don't occur as they have with all of the other articles on this topic. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. Antelan talk 23:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikidude, my draft of the parapsychology article was installed here in an incomplete form, so I am happy to see someone else taking a stab at it and rounding things out a bit. There's just a few things I'd like to recommend. First, the draft that NealParr and I put up was built almost entirely on secondary sources and mainstream scientific journals. I would really like to see that trend continue. The articles I provided above fit within this scheme. Second, we avoided the use of quotes, because quotes almost always beg a response, and we are trying to avoid the structure of a criticism-response in these sections. I took a peak at your draft, and I see that you are already starting to use quotes. I hope you will consider removing those because we are all aiming for a stable article here. Third, this is an article about parapsychology, not an article about the criticism of parapsychology, so I hope that you will keep the criticism section at an appropriate length. Lastly, I think we'd all like to see this become a featured article someday, so I hope that you will keep these criteria in mind while editing. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 00:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Let the weight and importance of the content dictate the length of each section. The function of this article is to inform readers about the existence of parapsychology, what it is, and why it is notable. Antelan talk 00:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't even know there was a guideline on the the Wikipedia:Summary_style (linked off of #4 on the Featured article criteria). When I talk about streamlining and summarizing, that's a better example of what I was talking about and just didn't know there was something to point to. Could have saved me a lot of trouble : )
--Nealparr (talk to me) 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't finished reading the draft, but scanning it there were no red flags to me. I would like to see some more neutral wording in some places, but overall I thought it looked good. I see no problem with the article Nealparr put in either. We need to keep in mind that the article is about the field, not the controversy itself. I think a good principle is that we are not trying to determine truth with this article. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I don't think anyone could disagree with your comment about truth. Antelan talk 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Were that always the case in practice, the controversies would be over. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's not debate until I've finished putting it together and then we can discuss it. I probably won't be able to get it done until tomorrow or monday because I have some things to do today so it's not an immediate matter. Once I get it done I'll post it here for criticism, I don't want to post it here until I've finished it because there are still many problems with it that I need to fix and readers might get false impressions from it. It's not hard to find on my main page but I'll wait until I finish it to post it here for criticism. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The article states that "It is predicted by chance expectation that the correct target would be selected about 1 in 4 times, for a 25% "hit rate.". Does anyone have a source for this? I believe the article cites Radins book but I would prefer a more neutral source. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
"Psi Assumption" in the Skeptic's Dictionary would cover that sentence.[7] I don't know if it's more neutral, but it's probably likelier to be accepted.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 02:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't support what the article was saying. The article was saying that ANY results above 1/4 or 25% are above chance expectation. I can't find anywhere the article makes such a claim. It looks like someone mis-read and mis-wrote that. The article only mentions "25%" once and not in that context. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. This one actually says 1 in 4 [8]. Annalisa probably has better sources. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should not be ok with bad sources just because some people will accept them. This is what you want, and it is also skeptical: [9] It says "By chance alone, receivers should select the actual target 25% of the time. A statistically significant deviation above this baseline, maintained across a database of studies, is taken to indicate a communication anomaly." Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, yep, that's the better source. Page 387, left column, towards the bottom. This is why I'm not an academic : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Nor am I, but I knew it was out there. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other orphans

Before the conversation about the merger of the controversy article, I mentioned that there are some other orphaned pages out there that may have once been linked from the main article but don't appear to be any longer. Three of these are History of parapsychology, Research results in parapsychology and Fraud in parapsychology. There may be others that we'd have to search for. We should probably talk about whether or not they should be merged, and if not, at least link them from their sections and synch them. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to do with them? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I could probably merge them into my draft of the parapsychology article while keeping it all under 60kb. Most of the information in those article is redundant or unsourced. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
^that. But if they can't be merged, they should be linked to the sections. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Does anyone here mind if they are merged? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know yet, It may not be possible. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I would mind if it meant that the main article becomes unreadable, otherwise not really.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 19:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it should be easy enough. Much of the content from those pages is represented in the article already. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

I've deleted the instances and phenomona from the see also section as they are mostly all covered in Scope. I've left the fields of work.

perfectblue 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Link

The dead link that was deleted wasn't dead after all so I've restored it, the actual dead link was the one underneath it.

perfectblue 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive POV pushing going on by pro-parapsychology types ignoring comments and policy

You know, this article is going to rapidly need a whole lot of editors to come in from outside and save it from the POV-pushers who aren't even pretending to follow WP:NPOV policy. You simply cannot just decide to remove links to organizations critical of parapsychology, or convert the external links section into a web directory for true believing organizations, or start throwing scientific labels on for no reason. I see from the talk pages involved that two of the most active people here run (or have run) wildly pro-parapsychology publications. I also see from the Arbitration ongoing at this time that people involved here are actively suggesting a complete and total bastardization of the NPOV policy to try to have their own way. I would suggest that anyone who is actively named or provided "evidence" (though such evidence in their case was merely a soapbox asking that policies be thrown out) immediately refrain from editing this article until their own involvement in the POV-pushing scandal can be adequately investigated. DreamGuy 20:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not editing this article beyond a picture here and there. I am participating in the conversation. My publication wasn't even about parapsychology. You consistently get your facts wrong. You can always edit the links yourself instead of going on a tirade about other people's edits. You're the one who put the tag up in the first place. It was actually balanced before. If you felt there were too many, take a second and remove something. If you feel it is unbalanced, add something. Then the burden is on you. All the edits on that section was because of your complaint.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 20:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:DFTT#Not_feeding_the_trolls

Block log

Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing but a rather lame personal attack and transparent attempt to pretend you don't have to pay attention to criticism or improve the article to follow policies just because you toss an insult off against someone here to enforce them. DreamGuy 07:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Forget troll, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. He's screaming POV pushing exactly as he's deleting neutral category links. The link between parapsychology and psychology is sourced several times in the article. There are no mainstream sources divorcing the two. On the contrary, there is recent mainstream source linking them as recent as this year. But even if there were a recent mainstream source divorcing the two there are numerous sources linking them historically. The constant removal of the psychology category by DreamGuy isn't just a contentious non-NPOV edit, it is original research. Original research because there's no sources reflecting that and contentious because historically they have been linked for some time.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 22:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
And the idea that that is a "neutral" category link only goes to show how extremely biased you are. Removing it has nothing to do with original research, and I can't imagine how anyone who had actually read that policy could ever make that claim. Historical links certainly are no reason to apply a false category, especially when doing so completely misrepresents the topic. DreamGuy 07:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Step back. Take a deep breath. Ask for some opinions on the matter. And go from there. That's what we did with the pseudoscience category and the world didn't end because people came up with some logical explanations for keeping it. I was one who agreed with keeping it mostly because it's sourced in the article. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have made my interests, expertise, and affiliations upfront on my userpage. So what are yours? I removed those links in order to satisfy your request. The idea motivating those removals was that the list could be pared down to just academic laboratories and research organizations. I suggest that you take at look at the meaning of 'anomalistic psychology' before you continue to insist that I didn't leave anything up that was skeptical or critical...or call my blog 'wildly pro-parapsychology' for that matter. I didn't put up a 'scientific label' for no reason, but you did tear it down for no reason (other than your unsupported assertions), so who is pushing POV, I wonder? Nice block log, by the way. Color me impressed. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 21:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't remove those links to satisfy my request, as I cited WP:EL and you specifically removed ONLY the ones that MOST meet the WP:EL rules and left the ones that MOST violate it. And I suppose it should be a coincidence that you and then later User:Martinphi removed ALL of the links that had any sort of skeptical or neutral point of view and ONLY left the links to organizations that support the reality of psychic phenomena? The POV pushing here is so off the scale that it's simple mind boggling. DreamGuy 07:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if we all get real quiet. He'll go away. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
He is correct regarding the removal of skeptical links, though. If those links apply to the subject (and the ones I saw taken out did) they will be put back eventually. ETA - I see they already were put back. Never mind. - LuckyLouie 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just trying to pare down the list to the essentials (research organizations and laboratories) to satisfy his demands. I don't really think in black-and-white, skeptics-versus-believers terms. I was thinking in terms of function rather than position. Besides, at least two of those labs left do behind engage in skeptical research (Goldsmiths and Perrot Warrick). However, I did return the list back to the way it was originally since DreamGuy is proving to be little more than a disruptive editor and everyone was much happier with links list from my original draft. Sorry about the confusion. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 22:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content, not contributor

Enough of the ad hominem gang attack. It's not appropriate, and neither is this. Antelan talk 22:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Difference between attack and defense. I'm still wondering why I keep getting brought up as a pov editor when I'm not even editing the damn thing. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
"Defense" LOL, right.... And why do you get brought up as a POV-pushing editor? Gosh, I don't know, maybe it's because you falsely claim that Annalisa here has never tried to push her POV on the article when it's so undeniable that only somone encouraging her in her POV-pushing could ignore it. Or maybe it's because you lied and said she wasn;t a party to the arbitration about extensive POV-pushing across tons of articles. DreamGuy 07:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I would still have to actually make a pov edit to be a pov editor and you can simply check the party list at the ArbCom and Annalisa's contributions to see that she's not a party and that she hasn't edited tons of articles. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You are referring to Dream Guy's ad hominem attacks on Neal and I, I hope. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 22:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
They aren't ad hominem attacks on you, they are simply pointing out that you clearly demonstrate a bias and are using this bias in your edits on the article. That's not attacking you, it's attacking your policy-breaking edits. DreamGuy 07:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't defend trolls. Don't feed trolls. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, you are the only one acting like a troll on this page. DreamGuy 07:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, because I had a magazine called Paranormal Magazine, that he's never even read but assumes was pro-paranormal, DreamGuy thinks I'm a POV editor. CSI used to be CSICOP where the P stood for Paranormal. I guess by the same logic, they're pro-paranormal too. Read my damn edits. Actually editing in a non-NPOV makes a POV editor. I waste a lot of time at Wikipedia striving for neutrality. Yes, that's a little irritating, and defending myself is not an attack.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Out of sheer curiosity, I was driven to Google. "(Nealparr) is an enthusiast of the paranormal who emphasizes the application of the paranormal in everyday life. He is the creator of (site name), where he writes monthly articles on issues related to what he calls the psychic subculture. His goal is to make this site the largest, strictly psychic, search engine available on the web." Not that there's anything wrong with that. - LuckyLouie 23:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh God, lol. Those graphics are from 1997! I do much cooler work now. Yes, I am interested in the paranormal. Yes I did have a search engine for paranormal websites at one time. I didn't write the blurb, however, and thinking back I'm not sure that really characterized the site. It was just a search engine and I didn't write any articles. So no, I'm not really claiming that blurb. It is an interesting blast from the past though, thanks LL! I do think paranormal stuff is fascinating, but it's in an X-files kind of way, not as supported by science sort of way. All about me and other stuff that doesn't effect my editing style
Btw, second pic down, that was to impress a chick. Don't read too much into it ; )
--Nealparr (talk to me) 23:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Anything done with the goal of impressing chicks is self-explanatory, and no reading into it necessary. - LuckyLouie 02:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
For real. Look folks, you can be skeptical or a true believer, but there's no denying that New Age chicks are hot. That's a wikifact. : )
--Nealparr (talk to me) 02:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, that article on New Age needs a photo-gallery! Antelan talk 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Before we get too carried away, I'll close this line of thinking with my new abbreviated talk page style and simply say "Ah yes, the one uniting factor between mystics and skeptics is that even the most skeptical is willing to entertain the idea of tantric sex as being beneficial on some level." : ) Moving on...
--Nealparr (talk to me) 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Half the problem on this talk page is the assumption that parapsychologists believe that the phenomena that they are studying are paranormal. Sure, some of them do, but there are a great deal of parapsychologists who don't, and most on both sides of the issue do an excellent job of suspending their beliefs (or disbeliefs) about the subjects they study for the sake of objectivity. Most people here don't know that my first study was a replication of Richard Wiseman's (a career skeptic and psychologist) Edinburgh vaults study...or that my current study is about how context, beliefs, expertise, and tolerance of ambiguity impact an individual's assessment of images as 'anomalous'. Studying parapsychology (or hosting a blog about it) is not about being pro or con to anything. It only requires the belief that all aspects of human experience can be studied scientifically. All of this posturing, accusations of POV-pushing, and suggestions that editors might be guilty by association is really missing the big picture. And worse, it's a waste of everyone's time. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record Annalisa, and IMO, I thought your rewrite of the article was a big improvement over the original, which was riddled with defensive responses to critics and littered with the detritus of old edit wars. Aside from the APA citation style (not your fault) and the Criticism section (not your fault - it's normal that all sides would want further input in that section) it was well written. I also appreciate how you don't spend your energy filling Talk pages with rhetoric trying to high-pressure-sell your opinions. This article deals with a controversial subject, so expect some vigorous discussion, and don't take it personally. - LuckyLouie 02:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
^now that, the rhetoric part, I am guilty of and I'll try to improve on that in the future.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 02:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Louie. I was really hoping that the Harvard referencing would work, but I'll admit to defeat ;-). As for the criticism section, it was very much incomplete (like the rest of the article), so I appreciate you guys plugging away at it. I hope you'll make use of the Alcock article, because I think it's (mostly) a fair assessment of the field from a skeptical psychologist's perspective. I haven't had the time, or I would've used it more myself. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration request on DreamGuy.

I have opened an arbitration request on DreamGuy. Annalisa has been asked to contribute her comments directly via that request. Anyone else who would like to contribute (in a positive, negative or neutral vein) can do so at WP:RFAR under DreamGuy. --DashaKat 18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts of Interest

As Annalisa noted on her user page and is duly noted in WP:COI, having an interest in a subject does not preclude you from editing within the subject. However, it urges you to "avoid, or exercise great caution" (emphasis original) when editing such articles. WP:COI encourages editors to avoid COI by doing the following:

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:
  1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
Action
Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or to file a request for comment.

Let's get this all out in the open since I didn't know about any of these potential COIs, save Dean Radin's, until now.

User:Deanradin stated that he is Dean Radin, a parapsychological researcher.

User:Nealparr stated that he ran a magazine about the paranormal. This is paranormalmagazine.com, which has the tagline "Some things have to be believed to be seen."

Incorrect. Paranormal Magazine is a UK based print magazine and is not affiliated to me in any way. My actual job is as web designer programmer and I live in the US. I have no interest in parapsychology beyond a historical perspective. I am interested in paranormal in a Fortean way, but not in any sort of advocacy way. I could really care less about parapsychology and was dragged into the discussion by folks who thought I could help find neutral ground. There's no conflict of interest, I reject being listed along with paranormal professionals, and it's really no one's business if no controversial edits are made by me. Cheers : )--Nealparr (talk to me) 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Very well. You did indicate that you ran a paranormal magazine, and this was the one linked from another page with your name. Would you mind clarifying this since I apparently identified the wrong magazine? Antelan talk 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not at liberty to go into details, but it involves buying and selling property. I am not affiliated with that website nor the print magazine. I reiterate, respectfully, that it's no one's business. I'll refrain from my long rhetoric and just give you the gist, but the COI guidelines refer to articles about oneself and one's organization, not about topics. Radin editing his own article falls under COI, but Annalisa participating in parapsychology does not, unless she were to use her blog as a source or edit an article about herself or her blog. I am totally not notable enough to have anything at Wikipedia about myself, so there's nothing to edit. As for topics, anyone can edit any article. I understand the idea behind this thread, but it really isn't based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. For my own part, show me something where I messed up, and I'd be the first one to fix it. <-I think that was short enough but still covers my position on the inquiry. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You're restating some of the same things I said in the intro to this section about conflict of interest. If you prefer not to disclose the name of the paranormally-oriented magazine you were affiliated with, that is, of course, your prerogative. Antelan talk 20:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not restating anything you're saying, I'm pointing out that the actual COI guidelines do not apply, and that it's no one's business because of that. And again, my point is that I have already given the name and nature of the actual magazine that I was (past tense) affiliated with, despite it being no one's business. The nature of it was a news magazine with slightly skeptical commentary, you know, like Charles Fort who dug up stories and added satirical comments. Does the link you provided resemble that at all? The woman on the front page certainly doesn't resemble me. I've been very candid considering my position that it is no one's business because it doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia guidelines. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you sincerely believe that the COI guidelines do not apply to this article? Antelan talk 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
What you quoted as an example of how it would has nothing to do with me. I know that much. This part does: "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest". The COI guideline clearly states what they mean by "interest" and it's not an interest in the subject. There's a list of examples [10] and none of them apply to me. I would characterize all the delving into my personal business as a witch hunt because edits that I make don't have anything to do with me and are based on sources versus some ideological concept, pro or con. I could elaborate, but I'm trying to keep my posts short. You're welcome to my talk page if you'd like. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Annalisa Ventola stated on her user page, "I founded a web site, Public Parapsychology, which is dedicated to advancing public scholarship in the field of parapsychology. In addition, I have also coauthored a field study on haunting-type experiences and authored several book reviews on various anomalistic and fringe topics, which have appeared in the pages of peer-reviewed journals."

Yes, this is true, and my CV is located [here] if anyone would like to examine this statement in more detail. Keep in mind, however, that I am not a career parapsychologist. I earn my living as musician, and most of my own research (which I do on the side) falls within the area of anomalistic psychology, not necessarily psi research (I wrote and article about the difference between the two here). My particular area of expertise is haunting experiences and paranomal beliefs, but I consider myself a generalist, and I try to keep abreast of all of the happenings in the field, on all sides of the issue...which is why I started the blog.
I've been aware of the COI policy for sometime now, and I have dealt with it by making my affiliations clear and taking a step back when it seems appropriate. This is why I've been staying out of the ArbCom case. I presented evidence, but prefaced that with an invitation for the arbitrators to look at my user page for potential COI. That has been the extent of my involvement there.
Like Antelan, I also got involved because of the poor state of the previous version of the article. I think that the rewrite I helped organized was an improvement over the old version and is bringing us editors closer to a stable, neutral article. I'm still kind of new here, so I do make mistakes, but I hope that my presence here has generally been a positive thing for Wikipedia. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Antelan (I) am a medical student with no interest in parapsychology or the paranormal, but the poor state of the previous version of this article drew my attention.

I encourage others to state any potentially relevant interest that they have. Antelan talk 18:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:LuckyLouie My vita is pretty darn boring. I publish no research papers, manifestos, magazines, blogs, or commercial sites. I'm a writer and creative consultant for ad agencies on the West Coast, working on accounts like autos, hi tech, entertainment, etc. Personally, I tend to have a skeptical outlook regarding the paranormal, or for that matter, anything not sufficiently proven to exist. My interest in audio and electronics drew me to the electronic voice phenomenon article one day, and prompted participation in some other paranormal articles. I have no interest in parapsychology or the paranormal, save perhaps some curiosity about this particular subculture and its beliefs. - LuckyLouie 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is against my political beliefs to participate in this. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Well, that gu's conflict of interest should be clear, as even his user name indicates an agenda. DreamGuy 04:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am just a longtime editor who goes around enforcing Wikipedia policies on articles that have not been following them. WP:NPOV and WP:EL being the two major ones. Of course that frequently gets people with agendas upset. The agendas of several editors here have been very well established, and in fact they are undergoing arbitration for it already. DreamGuy 04:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is getting out of hand...

When I left this talk page yesterday everything seemed to be working ok, no one was attacking anyone else and it looked like we might be able to sort these problems out like adults. However I come back and see numerous arguments and paragraphs and personal attacks being thrown at one another and even a request for arbitration? I'm going to put some more work into the new Parapsychology article with it's merger from the Controversies of parapsychology article and I might even have a rough draft complete within a few hours, however inorder for this to work I'll need everyone willing to contribute constructive criticism towards the new rough draft without attempting to attack one another. Can we do that? Let's halt all arguments concerning this article until the rough draft is complete and then we can all work together to replace this article with it once we all agree on it. Is that possible? Wikidudeman (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a flare up yesterday, but no one's really fighting today. I think we're all looking forward to your draft, so write on and ignore the stuff that's going on over here. It's not important.--Nealparr (talk to me) 21:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The actual arguments yesterday were over the length and balance of the external links and whether or not the psychology category and templates should be in the article, so you might want to look at that in the draft.--Nealparr (talk to me) 21:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to your draft. There are always attack dogs sniffing around the paranormal articles. My (new) position is that they should be ignored as much as possible. Only legitimate logical or factual arguments or questions should be responded to. If all the responsible editors around here did that, we'd have less fighting. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and according to the arbitration, you're one of the attack dogs. Frankly, it's POV-pushers like yourself who should be ignored. But I guess we'll just have to wait until the arbitration is over before that gets done. DreamGuy 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we'll be just fine, external links and categories are peripheral stuff anyhow. Hopefully that particular disruptive editor will be moving on soon. Carry on. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 21:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Good god, enforcing Wikipedia policies does not make someone disruptive, even if there's a group of editors whose sole prupose on Wikipedia is to try o ignore policies to advance their own agenda. DreamGuy 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment of editors

No one has in any way shown that anyone here has a COI. I can see how one would go on a vendetta against another editor or editors in an ArbCom case, but spreading such behavior to other areas of Wikipedia is not appropriate. If anyone feels they have a case concerning COI -or anything else- against any editor, I urge them to take it to the next level. Till then, please desist in harassment campaigns. I also urge other editors who have been responding to such campaigns to take a similar stance. If anyone presents a good case proving COI or any other mis-behavior, then that will be the appropriate time to respond. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the ArbCom against DreamGuy, this si not a case of harrassment. The request for arbitration was clearly warranted. --DashaKat 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, no, of course not. And if there is anything I can do to help with that case, let me know. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You are already under arbitration yourself, so trying to "help out" another one is pretty laughable. DreamGuy 04:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't really take this as harassment...not yet. Sometimes its a good thing if people want to take time to state their potential biases and assumptions, especially when trying to work together toward creating something neutral and/or objective. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:COI, as well as WP:NPOV-violations, of several editors HAS been well established. Unfortunately Martininphi and Annalisa_Ventola are two who have been fully documented as such, so of course they are going to deny it. The arbitration against them is approved, active, and ongoing. DashaKat's attempt to file arbitration against me for no good reason is so far failing. Huge difference there. DreamGuy 04:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Annalisa has participated in the paranormal arbitration, but she is not a party to the arbitration (seems semantic, but it's a serious distinction). You are correct about Martinphi's ArbCom status, though. Antelan talk 04:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)