Talk:Psychic/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Assessment comments

"Psychic senses" section could use some work, maybe with links, and probably changing the last paragraph to reflect "five normal senses", thus eliminating repetition. "Seventh sense" being claricognizance needs to be clarified, as no "sixth" is named. "Fiction" section could be longer. A separate "References" section listing the references alphabetically would be useful as well. John Carter 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom

Note:copied from a user page discussion

I don't recall this as being part of the ArbCom ruling. It looks like it came from [1], but I don't believe the arbitrator actually said to use that specific wording; and the statement from the arbitrator: "I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter," leaves me with the understanding that the original wording was fine and didn't need to be changed at all...much less being "literally per the ArbCom". Looks like the editor who added it is willing to edit war over it, so I thought I'd get another opinion on it...and you seem like the perfect choice..;) – Dreadstar † 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

<minor edit> I would rather see a consensus discussion take place on the Talk:Psychic page than to just revert the disputed edit again - I think it might just lead to edit warring, which is one of the basic things ArbCom was really addressing with its rulings. If we are interpreting the edit correctly as a provocative or WP:POINT edit, then it's unfortunate that Uninvited Co's hope seems to have been missed: "I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)". – Dreadstar † 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to discuss the article on its talk page, in full view of other editors? Ante lan ^talk 22:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, per request by User:Antelan. – Dreadstar † 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't want to move it myself in case there would be an objection. Ante lan ^talk 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point one

Antelan, please explain why you are making non-consensus edits and edit warring to keep them in. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Equally, you "edit-warred", to use your term, to take my edit out. Pot, kettle, black. I don't think a discussion introduced in the way you've introduced it is going to go anywhere productive, frankly. Ante lan ^talk 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparently or not apparently

Apparently is apparently not a word we have to use and is more a wording choice. We can get a straw poll going or just comment. I don't personally see anything wrong with using "apparently", but I think once is sufficient to do any framing of the topic and it doesn't have to be repeated multiple times. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, "Apparently" is one of the types of words which the ArbCom ruled we don't need to use any more. We follow the ArbCom decision, not what a single Arbitrator said- even if by some stretch of the immagination he meant we needed to change it when he said there was nothing wrong with the current article. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote the relevant part so we can start from there? I really don't want to read through all of that again : ). Quick search of WP:WTA doesn't turn up the word unless I missed it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

and

The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose.

In this case, the article is framed with paranormal and ESP. The whole conglomerate of articles frame each other. Controversy is included in the psychic article, and in its lead.

But we first should return to the consensus version, then discuss this on the talk page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to returning to the previous version until it's resolved? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DO you have a link tot he previosu version of this atticle.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs) (20:39, 5 August 2007

I believe this is the proposed previous version to be reverted to. I have no objections Nealparr. I think since the current version is disputed, it should be reverted until consensus can be reached on it. – Dreadstar † 00:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi disputes the current version, and I am uncomfortable with the previous version. I would prefer that the decision to revert or not revert for the time being be based on the analysis of people other than the two of us. Ante lan ^talk 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks i have no obections to that version either. it looks the same as the other one,re ally? Smith Jones 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure but what Smith Jones means the ArbCom decision, which is here. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get too indepth on this article right now because technically I'm on Wikibreak and just responding to articles I am actually involved in. But since outside opinion was asked for, I thought I'd drop my thoughts before going back to my other stuff. Personally, I don't think the current wording is worded well. Line by line:

A psychic is a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces. I think this is fine.
The term denotes apparently paranormal extra-sensory abilities or phenomena that may or may not exist. May not exist is unnecessary because it's framed as "paranormal", which is phenomena that may or may not exist. "Apparently" isn't needed either because that was already said in the first line. Paranormal phenomena may or may not exist, so currently this line reads as "apparently phenomena that may or may not exist [...] phenomena that may or may not exist". <- That's not a typo.
They are said to be inexplicable by known natural laws, transcending the confines of our current understanding of what a human being is capable of. This line isn't that bad, but again it's redundant. The definition of "paranormal" is the part before the comma, so again it's repeating itself.

Not getting into this article right now, but offering the above in case it's helpful. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The part about being sensitive to "non-physical forces" leaves begs the question of what a physical force is. Since all known forces are "fields," well, it ain't sayin' nothin. The original summary was much better. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't like the previous version either. I don't like the entire article, honestly : ) That's why I'm not getting involved. I thought I might but after reading through it thought, why bother? It's currently way too much about psychical research. Psychic (noun and adjective) is WP:WEIGHT more about a pop culture phenomenon related to New Age than stuffy old psychical research. Millions of people are involved in the culture behind Sylvia Browne books and James Van Praagh television shows versus the couple of hundred people interested in parapsychology. That's the approach I would take, the pop culture approach, and stuff the parapsychology down into a small section near the bottom. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd take the almost opposite view, that the research is important and should be prioritised in the article, and the popular beliefs coming second. Hopefully a consensus on this will emerge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 07:47, 6 August 2007

I agree that pop culture should come first, because it is more notable culturally. Nealparr, I was under the impression you basically wrote the whole article. But that aside, as far as the article, we need a definition that doesn't weasel or use WTAs or words/ways of phrasing like what the ArbCom ruled against. And we need skepticism displayed to round out the concept of "psychic." –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I had a relatively short psychical research section and was always planning to develop the pop culture part as a higher prominence. Just never got around it : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a consensus for reverting back to the previous version until the proposed changes have been discussed and consensus is reached on any new wording. Plus, the redundant aspects of the lead need to be addressed as soon as possible. I'll revert now and we can move forward in discussing the changes. Hopefully this will be ok with everyone involved. Let me know if any of you disagree. I'm happy to see everyone working together towards an agreed upon version! – Dreadstar † 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if the weasel tag is ok, or if there is a more appropriate one. I merely reverted back to the version that existed before this issue was raised. – Dreadstar † 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Psychic

If we're going to refer to people like Sylvia Browne or John Edward as "Psychics" then this article must reflect the definition of "Psychic" as someone who "claims" to have paranormal abilities but not someone who necessarily has them. The Arbitration committee voted unanimously for the following statement: ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." This means that if a psychic "may not" have psychic abilities an the use of the term does not imply that such abilities actually exist, we need to clarify that in this article. That means that this article needs to define "Psychic" as someone who "claims to have" psychic abilities and not someone who necessarily has them. The criticism section doesn't negate the fact that if this article defines "psychic" as someone with psychic abilities, then Wikipedia would be affirming that people like Sylvia Browne or John Edward actually have psychic powers. This would all be acceptable per WP:WTA.

Also, Concerning the term "apparently". This term is very ambiguous. If someone "apparently" has psychic powers, then who is it apparent to? It isn't apparent to me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources such as the New York Times might insult its readers by explaining what they mean when they use the term psychic - for example, describing Jeane Dixon as a "self-described psychic" - but are we going to stoop to the level of the New York Times? Ante lan ^talk 01:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee made the decision to prevent us from calling self described psychics...Self described psychics. If we're stuck with this limitation then we need to clarify what the term "psychic" means in this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't put things better than Fred Bauder:

A "psychic", like a "saint", or the "nobility", is a social construct. Like a saint, who may not be good, or a member of the nobility who may not display discernible noble characteristics or behavior, a psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist. Thus referring to someone who holds themselves out as a psychic or who performs as a psychic or is recognized by others as a psychic does not necessarily imply that any such capability exists, any more than a reference to the goose that lays golden eggs implies the ability of any goose to lay golden eggs. On the other hand, obviously a person (or departed spirit) could be very good and have the ability to respond to prayer, or have noble characteristics or psychic abilities, yet lack social recognition, or self-identification as such, assuming such abilities exist.

What this means is that although the definition of a word like psychic is "someone with powers," referring to someone as a "psychic" does not actually indicate that those powers exist. We already explain this fully in the article. We have framed this article with words like paranormal and ESP. We have specifically said in the lead:

The existence of real psychic abilities is very controversial, and skeptics say that the apparent instances of psychic phenomena, and the studies conducted by parapsychologists are better explained by self-delusion, fraud, or error.

We have included a Criticism section.

I'm sorry some people don't like the fact that the ArbCom decided that framing an article and including skepticism is enough to tell the reader that the powers may not exist. However, we are at the point now where people will either have to abide by the ArbCom or choose to attempt to subvert it. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=149442964&oldid=149442424 Ante lan ^talk 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you put that link? If you are saying that Bauder is not a god, I'm not saying he is. Rather, he put the intent of the ArbCom better than I've been able to. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin, You keep quoting people who say that "Psychic" doesn't necessarily mean someone with psychic powers, yet here you say that " the proper way to define "psychic" is as someone who HAS powers". So which is it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've explained it, Fred Bauder explained it, the ArbCom explains it. I don't think there's more I can say. If you quote me out of context, I'm sure you can come up with proof I'm the Devil incarnate. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Building consensus requires us to be able to work towards a unified vision for the article. I raised the concern in the RfC that the meaning encapsulated in the term "psychic" is not globally agreed upon; different people are operating under different definitions. You have asserted multiple, conflicting meanings of "psychic", and have been invoking the ArbCom in lieu of clarifying your position. We can cut through all of this if you will be straightforward about a self-consistent definition that you are comfortable with. It doesn't have to be a definition that I agree with; we just need some clue as to where you stand so we can find some common ground here. Ante lan ^talk 04:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin, What you're saying and what the Arbcom has said are two totally different things. The arbitration committee has said that "A psychic may not have psychic abilities" and this needs to be made clear in the first or second sentence of this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made myself as clear as I can. You'll just have to accept what the ArbCom actually says- in context and as a whole. There is nothing wrong with the current lead. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a tip: Wikipedia isn't Wiktionary. Psychic is a pretty common term and doesn't require an indepth technical definition and can skirit a definition altogether. For example, instead of "Psychic is...", you can use "The term psychic relates to the belief in supernatural forces, events, or powers." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If this one word, psychic, is going to adequately frame an entire article to the exclusion of any qualifiers indicating which of the several definitions of psychic we are using, it had better be crystal clear to us and to our readers what we mean when we use this word. I'm absolutely blown away that people are arguing in favor of vagueness instead of clarity - and to what end? Ante lan ^talk 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Compliance with the parameters of Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it's the entire article here that does the framing. Example "parapsychological phenomena" isn't framed by the limited definition of parapsychology, it's framed by the whole controversy. Just a tip. I'm not arguing for any particular wording. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a very important point: it's the entire article which does the framing, and also the entire article which gives the full feel for the definition of psychic. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate.

So to state it the way I did "A psychic is someone who has psychic powers, but those powers may not really exist," is not quite accurate. Rather, the word psychic conveys many meanings. The two most important to skeptics and believers, however, are the two I stated. Both of those meanings are contained in the word psychic, and both are reflected in the current Psychic lead, which is well-framed per the ArbCom. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New definition case

I'm attempting to make a case for the fact that the term "psychic", as it is being used commonly, and under the heading of the picture/info of Edgar Cayce (RHS), is inaccurate. There is no definition for the term as being a noun - the closest being, "medium". I believe it to be untrue for Wikipedia to use such a sensitive and mysterious concept as those things that are 'psyhic', in an erroneous way. I've tried to include the dictionary.com (source) definition of the word in editing the page, only to have it removed. However, any placement would be sufficient - as long as it is there. No rule applies to everything... including this one. User:Classicalloy 06:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)classicalloy

Hi classicalloy. Try #6 from dictionary.com [2]. It is listed as a noun. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop bickering

PEOPLE PLEASE STOP BIVCKERING ITS NOT SOLVING ANYTHING!!!!! Smith Jones 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good man. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bicker-to engage in petulant or peevish argument. You're saying that my argument is petulant or peevish? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

NO!!!! SOMEONE MOVED MY 'STOP BICKERING' SECTION DOWN FOR SOME REEASON. Smith Jones 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Smith Jones 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't intended to annoy you, just formatting. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm not made you just upset because it was not made until befofe wikidudemen and entered the debate. i was talking about the bickering that came b efore that but as usual everyone assmes the worst. Smith Jones 17: 10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you think it was aimed at you? I thought it was aimed at the argument. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm part of the argument and am making arguments. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kay. Whatever –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended definition

"Supernatural forces, events, or powers". It's verifiable to a source[3], and doesn't require explanation that it doesn't exist. "Supernatural" itself is the qualifier. Supernatural doesn't invoke science in any way shape or form. Alternates that use "supernatural" as the qualifier (from other sources) likewise don't need a "may not exist statement" in the definition and don't invoke science. Call it a day. For people who are psychic, I don't believe the arbitration said anything about "said to" being off limits in terms of specific people's claimed abilities. Sylvia Browne is a psychic (job title). Sylvia Browne is said to have the ability to see into the future (claimed ability). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That which is supernatural by definition does not exist. This is completely unacceptable. Paranormal is fine, and serves the same purpose. Re the rest of it, if we speak of a specific person's powers, then we do qualify. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true, and it was a term mentioned in the arbitration. God is supernatural. Go tell all the people who believe in God that by definition of supernatural God is non-existent. Supernatural means "beyond natural", which is exactly what the current wording says, but the current wording has problems. Paranormal means "not explainable by science". There's absolutely no reason to invoke science in the intro. Here's my thoughtfully worded intro suggestion which I have sources for.

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population believe in extra-sensory perception. Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs.

This definition is fully compatible with the arbitration ruling and general principles of Wikipedia and is verifiable through sources. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't resist a Bela Lugosi quote:

Some Guy: "Sounds like a lot of supernatural bologna to me."

Bella Lugosi: "Supernatural, perhaps. Bologna, perhaps not."

Seriously, supernatural does not mean non-existent, and the definition solves problems.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you have written the Paranormal article and not know the definition of paranormal? Paranormal means "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." It there is a huge difference between the supernatural and the paranormal.

Supernatural means stuff like:

1.supernatural - not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings" –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible" is easily reduced to "not explainable". "By science" is shorthand for "current scientific assumptions". The suggestion is based on sources and just a suggestion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, this is right. But "people sensitive to or able to use these supernatural forces" can be reduced to "the term psychic denotes a person who is sensitive ot or able to use forces which in actuality don't exist." –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a philosophical argument, Martinphi, and not supernatural's definition. Your POV in this instance is naturalism, which holds that the "natural world" has complete dominion on existential statements, that only things in the natural world exist, when strictly speaking there's absolutely no way to know if that is true or not. Hence it is not the definition of supernatural, that the thing does not exist, only that it is beyond the natural world. Asserting that "supernatural" "does not exist" is biasing towards "naturalism". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the supernatural can exist, the definition of natural is something like "the phenomena of the physical world," and we have no business stating that psychic things are not of the so-called physical world. What have you got against "paranormal?" If we use that word, we aren't making any statement about whether it is natural or supernatural, only that it seems not to accord with current science, for whatever reason. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Against paranormal? Nothing. That can be used to. Just offering suggestions as compromises. I'm not advocating any particular wording, just offering suggestions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people sensitive to or able to use these forces.

How about that? –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1. We don't need to mention the psychological use of the term "psychic" since it's elaborated on in the psyche article. This article deals with the paranormal powers. This article deals exclusively with the paranormal and supernatural aspects of "mental powers" and shouldn't begin with talking about the history of the term not relating to paranormal phenomena. 2. If we're going to define "Psychic" as someone who definitely has psychic powers then we can't call people like Sylvia Browne a "psychic" since their purported powers aren't proven to exist. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

2. has already been decided by the ArbCom, and thoroughly hashed over. Your POV has not garnered support. I don't know if you have monitored this discussion, which ended thus.

See if you like this intro better:

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. The term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities that seem to be inexplicable by known natural laws, such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people apparently sensitive to or able to use these forces.

If you're going to keep referencing the Arbitration committee decision then you need to probably read what they said. They said and I quote ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist."[[4]]

If a psychic may NOT have psychic abilities then your definition as "Psychic", all of your definitions of psychic, are incorrect per the Arbcom decision. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"The existence of real psychic abilities is very controversial, and skeptics say that the apparent instances of psychic phenomena, and the studies conducted by parapsychologists are better explained by self-delusion and magical thinking, fraud, or error. "

You've been pushing and pushing this POV. You've just got to accept now that the Arbitrators don't look at only one sentence to see if an article is NPOV, but, at the very least, the entire lead. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It'd be hypocritical of me not to point out a goose/gander flaw in the "inexplicable by known natural laws" wording. The principle of the arbitration ruling was that qualifiers often don't add anything new. If we're going to say that "may or may not exist" doesn't need a qualifier because it's obvious, they why qualifiers like "known" laws, which implies that some unknown natural law is at play? Shouldn't it just read "inexplicable by natural law"? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin, Firstly, I would appreciate it if you would stop saying I am "pushing a POV". This isn't assuming good faith. Secondly, We're talking about the definition of the word "psychic" here. If you're going to go with the Arbcom definition then you need to be consistent with that and stop posting definitions up that conflict with the Arbcom definition. The Arbcom has said clearly and I've linked it, "A psychic may not have psychic abilities". What's the problem here? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any problem, according the Arbitrators. You have a problem. The Arbitrators don't look at only one sentence to see if an article is NPOV, but, at the very least, the entire lead. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

nobody has a problem let's try tow ork together tan abid by the wikipedia arbcobm descision. I have been reading it for the past several months now and acording to some of their decisions it is up to the ditors to deside who wll cover the exact nature of the topic. it would be better if we could come to a compromise instead of edit warring over the talk apge of notghing. Smith Jones 02:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem Martni? Now you're really not assuming good faith! You say that the "Arbitrators don't look at only one sentence to see if an article is NPOV, but, at the very least, the entire lead."? What does this even mean and how does it have any relation to the definition of "Psychic"? The Entire lead should be NPOV and not just one sentence? I agree. The lead should reflect what the arbitrators have said and should define "Psychics" as people who don't necessarily have supernatural powers. This is what the arbitration committee has said. Allow me to quote them again:

""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist."[[5]]

That is what they said. Nothing difficult about it. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, the term "psychic" can be used to describe someone like Sylvia Browne even if she doesn't have any "psychic abilities" and since that is the case, This article, the Psychic article, must reflect the definition as elaborated by the ArbCom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

" The lead should reflect what the arbitrators have said and should define "Psychics" as people who don't necessarily have supernatural powers. " You're right. And that's exactly what the current lead does. See also this. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

From reading the lead, I don't see it that way. Firstly, Nowhere does it clearly state that people who are called "psychics" don't necessarily have psychic powers. Secondly, The lead has far too many weasel words. The sentence "People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics"." is very ambiguous. "People who are thought to have these abilities"? Who thinks they have those abilities? I don't. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, The "Definition" in the right side box clearly says "An ability or phenomona[sic] said to originate from the brain, but to transcend its confines. Primarily in relation to Psi". This is an absolute statement asserting that "Psychics" have ability or phenomena which transcend the confines of the brain but are said to originate from it. This definition is also inaccurate. Many natural human abilities originate from the brain and transcend the confines of it. My ability to throw an object originates form the brain, yet the effects of the object thrown transcend the confines of the brain itself. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to the lead, not the box or the purported weasels for now. We can deal with them later. Here is where the lead clearly states that people who are called "psychics" don't necessarily have psychic powers:

"Psychic is a term relating to or denoting paranormal extra-sensory abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by known natural laws, since they transcend the confines of our current understanding of what a human being is capable of [that was what the ArbCom called framing]...The existence of real psychic abilities is very controversial, and skeptics say that the apparent instances of psychic phenomena, and the studies conducted by parapsychologists are better explained by self-delusion, fraud, or error." –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, What you just quoted says absolutely nothing about people called "Psychics" not necessarily having psychic powers. The part that would say that you left out. The second sentence, which you left out, says:

"People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics"."

This doesn't clarify that the people called psychics don't necessarily have such powers. It uses weasel terms such as "thought to have", but nowhere does it clarify that "those called psychics do not necessarily have psychic powers".

Secondly, The very first sentence of the article and the lead says that:

This definition is affirming that anyone called a "Psychic" must have paranormal extra-sensory abilities which are inexplicable by known natural laws. This is POV and goes against what the ArbCom has said. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains, however, that you are wrong. See explanations above, and on other pages linked. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another approach

Is there another way to explain in a neutral way the frauds, while still providing a technical definition, and avoiding qualifiers and words to avoid? For example:

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics. The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics".

That pretty much covers everyone in a neutral way.

I would also add my second line into the intro:

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population had a belief in extra-sensory perception.^[1] Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs.

This line qualifies it as a popular belief, which sets the tone for the (not written yet) pop culture examination.

To round it out, I would also add a modification to the third line:

Better wording. The current third line wording mentions "studies ... explained ... by self-delusion, fraud, or error". That would be "evidence" explained, not "studies" explained. Since no evidence is presented (or should be) in the intro, the above is a better summation of a research section.

Summation: The above, taken together, makes for a well-worded intro to a controversial topic. It also avoids qualifiers and words to avoid. Each part contains the alternate view in a non-argumentive way. I really recommend this version. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, Nealparr. How 'bout this modification- it gives a fuller explanation, and frames it better:

You added: "seem to be inexplicable by known natural laws" and removed "psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs", correct? Arbitration suggested paranormal is adequate framing, so the natural law stuff is not needed. "seem" is a qualifier. We don't need any of that, and it has already been disputed, so why add it? The psychologist explanation for the beliefs is the counter-view to the "big numbers" stats. It's popular, but that just may be because magical thinking is popular. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I replaced " As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics."

with

The term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities that seem to be inexplicable by known natural laws, such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people apparently sensitive to or able to use these forces.

The "seems" is sourced right to many definitions of psychic- and to the word paranormal. Could cut it to:

The term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people apparently sensitive to or able to use these forces.

We don't need to know "As an adjective," but specific instances are useful. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The "known natural law" definitely needs to be dumped. That is only one interpretation of "paranormal". As the arbitration suggested, paranormal is sufficient to frame a matter because the entire topic as a whole does the framing, not just the technical definition. In the "whole-framing", the alternate view is that these things can be can be explained by natural law (delusion and so forth). Just call it paranormal and be done with it. That's actually been your argument throughout : ) Goose/gander. "Psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche" is another notable usage. It's not all paranormal. Seems and apparently are weasel words and not needed because of the framing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. Ok, try this:

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. The term is popularly used to describe paranormal forces, influences, or abilities such as extra-sensory perception or psychokinesis, and people who are sensitive to or able to use these forces. Psychic also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions, but do not have paranormal abilities.

[edit] Problems with Lead

Comments on Neal's version, followed by general observations on everything.

1. Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. --- The Greek root word derivation and its partial reference to the human mind are not primary essential details. The article should get right to what the word means.

2. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics. --- As WDM, Antelan, and others point out, if we're going to define "Psychic" as someone who definitely has psychic powers then we can't call the people currently listed as psychics "psychics", since their purported powers aren't proven to exist. A qualifier is sorely needed.

3 The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics". --- Positioned as it does, this seems to be addressing some perceived need to draw a distinction between "real" psychic powers and "false" psychic powers. It makes an assumption (people "without paranormal abilities") that there are genuine abilities to compare with false ones.

4 Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. --- I think there could be a more neutral and less "promotional" way of describing the results suggested by one poll.

5 A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population had a belief in extra-sensory perception. ---- Might be justified if the lead took a pop culture slant. But as it is, it feels like a cherry-picked bit of data lifted out of a greater context.

6. Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs. --- This fails to connect with your proposed lead, which defines psychic as extraordinary powers, rather than a "belief". Also there are major WEIGHT issues. One of the big problems with Martin's version is that it defines the term psychic as extraordinary powers and then later mentions that there are some doubters and controversy. In other words, it states a fact, and then says that the fact is controversial. Maybe that is the way proponents frame the issue among themselves, but it is not appropriate on WP. This fundamentally errant construct definitely needs to be corrected rather than propagated using different words.

7. The existence of real psychic abilities is controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. -- Reference to "real" psychic abilities assumes there are "genuine" psychic abilities. Also I wonder if failure to gain any, rather than wide acceptance, isn't more the case.

8. The sidebar of this article ("Paranormal Terminology") has some major problems, too. The credulous "definition" of Psychic notwithstanding, I take exception to: Signature: The manifestations of knowledge, abilities or phenomena derived from the brain, but outside of its normal scope. Signature? As in a "How To Recognize It" guide for spotting psychic ability? Not appropriate.

9. Use of the word "apparently" -- one of those words in English with a widespread popular conversational usage different from it's actual definition. A majority of people use "apparently" to mean roughly, "confirmed by seeing" e.g. "Bill and Donna apparently broke up" or "We're apparently out of gas". It strikes me as the most misleading of any qualifier to use in such a controversial Wikipedia article as "Psychic", as it could be so easily taken to mean something different than what's intended. I suppose one could Wikilawyer that how people mis-use a word is not our problem, but I believe that no editor who subscribes to NPOV would want to deliberately exploit a possible confusion in any form, so I suggest "said to be" and such variants as preferred alternatives to "apparent".

10. Arbitrators have said ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist, and a psychic may not have psychic abilities. If this is true, it must be sourceable, and if it's sourceable, we can avoid all confusion by stating this in the lead -- i.e. the very specific conditions of the definition that *Wikipedia* is using for the word "psychic". I can see no good reason to keep readers of the article in the dark about this.

11. In the External Links: *Abella Arthur — Videos about psychic & paranormal activity from the perspective of a professional psychic Youtube psychics? I don't think this is an approprate WP:EL.

--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sectionizing it below. I restored it above, only as a reference to what I originally posted, as the attributions below can get confusing. - LuckyLouie 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of Psychic

Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. --- The Greek root word derivation and its partial reference to the human mind are not primary essential details. The article should get right to what the word means. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In part, the word is used to refer to the human mind or psyche. Examples, "psychic turmoil", "psychic debt" (guilt trip). It's not all paranormal. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dumped the whole derived part to the bottom. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifier needed

In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics. --- As WDM, Antelan, and others point out, if we're going to define "Psychic" as someone who definitely has psychic powers then we can't call the people currently listed as psychics "psychics", since their purported powers aren't proven to exist. A qualifier is sorely needed. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A qualifier is one option. Another option is to spell it out. That's what the very next line does. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We have spelled this out. Note that the current version is just fine per the ArbCom in the opinion of one Arbitrator. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, after re-reading it, a soft qualifier is actually in this line. "In popular usage". The difference (and why it's compatible with any arbitration suggestion, is that we're referring only to the usage of the term rather than making statements about the existence of paranormal phenomena. This line, if applied to Sylvia Browne, would read "Sylvia Browne is popularly described as one with psychic powers". Rather than "Sylvia Browne has psychic powers." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See #Your qualifier (please read)

[edit] Asssumption of validity

The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics". --- Positioned as it does, this seems to be addressing some perceived need to draw a distinction between "real" psychic powers and "false" psychic powers. It makes an assumption (people "without paranormal abilities") that there are genuine abilities to compare with false ones. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a distinction. There's real, and there's illusion, and the real may not exist. This is all covered in the intro. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is also framed, per ArbCom. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belief poll

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. --- I think there could be a more neutral and less "promotional" way of describing the results suggested by one poll. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to "common", less promotional. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallup survey

A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population had a belief in extra-sensory perception. ---- Might be justified if the lead took a pop culture slant. But as it is, it feels like a cherry-picked bit of data lifted out of a greater context. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This moves into the pop culture weight. Not every idea can be wrapped up in one sentence and it takes several sentences to move into it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what leads are. And the article should be more pop-culture. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention that the Gallup poll isn't cherry picked. It's the more reliable out of all of them and is one they do every couple of years to gauge changes. The one before that was in 2000, or 2001 I think. The source is Skeptical Inquirer. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychologist framing

Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs. --- This fails to connect with your proposed lead, which defines psychic as extraordinary powers, rather than a "belief". Also there are major WEIGHT issues. One of the big problems with Martin's version is that it defines the term psychic as extraordinary powers and then later mentions that there are some doubters and controversy. In other words, it states a fact, and then says that the fact is controversial. Maybe that is the way proponents frame the issue among themselves, but it is not appropriate on WP. This fundamentally errant construct definitely needs to be corrected rather than propagated using different words. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, not every idea can be wrapped up in one sentence. You have to set the technical definition before you can illustrate the approach the article will be taking. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a version. However, the Arbitrators see the article/lead as a whole, not as one particular sentence. We can have non-NPOV sentences in an NPOV lead. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asssumpition of validity II

The existence of real psychic abilities is controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. -- Reference to "real" psychic abilities assumes there are "genuine" psychic abilities. Also I wonder if failure to gain any, rather than wide acceptance, isn't more the case. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does assume "a controversial possibility". On the second part, are you suggesting it should read "evidence for paranormal has failed to gain wide acceptance"? Because I'm fine with that. It's not true that it hasn't gained "any". The parapsychology article elaborates on that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy is indeed assumed. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated it here [6]. Removed the "real" part and framed it as a scientific discussion, because that's what the following lines were about. Pop culture's ideas of its "realness" are largely subjective. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asssumption of validity sidebar

The sidebar of this article ("Paranormal Terminology") has some major problems, too. The credulous "definition" of Psychic notwithstanding, I take exception to: Signature: The manifestations of knowledge, abilities or phenomena derived from the brain, but outside of its normal scope. Signature? As in a "How To Recognize It" guide for spotting psychic ability? Not appropriate. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I updated that recently. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The "sidebar" is actually a terminology box, not a taxonomy box. It exists purely to frame and define the subject matter in a particular context. As for what is and isn't appropriate, I personally consider it appropriate for a terminology box to clearly define the terminology. The current box doesn't include a definition, which is silly. It tells you where the word comes from but not what it means. - perfectblue 13:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with the sidebar is that it's freakishly huge, and redundant. All the information in it is already in the article so it's hard to justify taking up so much page real estate saying the same thing all over again. I'd actually like to see it dropped in favor of a simple picture. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of 'apparently'

Use of the word "apparently" -- one of those words in English with a widespread popular conversational usage different from it's actual definition. A majority of people use "apparently" to mean roughly, "confirmed by seeing" e.g. "Bill and Donna apparently broke up" or "We're apparently out of gas". It strikes me as the most misleading of any qualifier to use in such a controversial Wikipedia article as "Psychic", as it could be so easily taken to mean something different than what's intended. I suppose one could Wikilawyer that how people mis-use a word is not our problem, but I believe that no editor who subscribes to NPOV would want to deliberately exploit a possible confusion in any form, so I suggest "said to be" and such variants as preferred alternatives to "apparent". --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My intro doesn't use the word. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, the new intro doesn't use it. And, the whole point of psychic phenomena is that they are apparent- else no one would believe in them. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural artifact statement

Arbitrators have said ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist, and a psychic may not have psychic abilities. If this is true, it must be sourceable, and if it's sourceable, we can avoid all confusion by stating this in the lead -- i.e. the very specific conditions of the definition that *Wikipedia* is using for the word "psychic". I can see no good reason to keep readers of the article in the dark about this. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what the new lead does. The new one says "Psychic also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions, but do not have paranormal abilities." –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can provide sources for my lead and will bother with the time doing it if this is the only objection. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link

In the External Links: *Abella Arthur — Videos about psychic & paranormal activity from the perspective of a professional psychic Youtube psychics? I don't think this is an approprate WP:EL. --- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would dump most external links that aren't authoritative. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

~~::Woah, really long. How should I address it? Divide it into sections? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)~~

[edit] Misc

Section away. Restored my OP at the top for reference. Sorry for the giant post, but I am busy and don't have time for serial discussion/negotiation. Take this me "registering my concerns" rather than a challenge to a debate ;-) I'll get back to this when I can. Thanks, Neal. - LuckyLouie 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, thank you for the feedback. I too don't want to get into all the discussions : ) I just thought the intro proposal might address some of the concerns that editors have raised. Good to have you commenting. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your qualifier (please read)

Many editors have requested a qualifier in the definition that states that the phenomena may or may not be real.

My proposed wording:

In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics.

Your qualifier: "In popular usage"

Why: Because this frames the controversial technical definition in a way that makes no existential statements whatsoever. It is its "popular usage". Is this acceptible to arbitration rulings? It has nothing to do with arbitration rulings, because it doesn't in fact make an existential statement. It only makes a statement about the usage of the term, not whether the phenomena exists or not. Is it an acceptible qualifier in general? Yes, it is exactly the same as "as a noun..." "as an adjective...".

Summary: Editors who don't want psychic phenomena defined as a "real" thing can rest easy with this statement, because it only makes a statement on usage. Editors who don't want psychic phenomena defined as "unreal" can rest easy for the same reason. Editors who only want a working technical definition can rest easy because it provides that in a non-controversial way.

Ta da, an acceptible qualification and framing that doesn't even require compromise as it's a win-win all around. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No. "In popular usage" doesn't take away from the fact that if "in popular usage" psychic means someone with powers and "in popular usage" Sylvia Browne is a psychic thus Sylvia Browne has powers. This is still asserting that the people who are labeled psychics have said powers. The only way to avoid this is to define "Psychic" as someone who may or may not have such powers, clearly saying that a "psychic is someone who contends to have psychic powers but does not necessarily have such powers." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are conclusions not supported by the several definitions included in my suggested intro. This definition is one definition of several (much like dictionary entries for other words with multiple meanings). There's several meanings in the full intro suggestion. This one, the contested one, is qualified by "popular usage". It does not assert that people who are labeled psychic has powers. It asserts that a popular usage is the contention that psychics have powers, just like your wording above. This is the most popular usage, one even used by Randi. The view that they don't have powers is covered by the other definition, also in my suggested intro on the very next line (not obscured), that they are charlatans. The entire paragraph needs to be taken as a whole, again, like dictionary entries for words that have multiple meanings. In those entries, each meaning is spelled out separately. The entire paragraph is the full definition, not one sentence. The only real difference between yours and mine is a period. The several meanings are:

As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics. The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics".

Editors will need to comprise and allow all three usages into the intro 1) uncontroversial mental (ex. "psychic turmoil") 2) the popular usage or technical definition (used in dictionaries, other encyclopedias, and even Randi's encyclopedia), and 3) mentalists and charlatans who have no power whatsoever. It's throwing a bone to qualify the second as a "popular usage", a qualifier not technically necessary. Again, this is a win-win and shouldn't require compromise. No one needs to walk away feeling they lost something. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other notes:

"Usage" - denotes "said to", "allege", or "contends", and many other similar phrases. It does not refer to a hard factual statement, such as "Psychic is..." or "Psychic refers to...". "Usage" implies a claim versus a simple fact. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this is about as good as it gets. If editor's aren't willing to bend, and are holding fast to their various views, it's not the environment that I'm comfortable working in and I'll go back to my other work. I personally don't mind if the neutrality tag stays up there. Maybe I'll chip in on the other sections. Is it better than what is currently there, good enough to put in leaving the neutrality tag in place? We can always come back to it later. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Said to be?

I forget, would anyone have a problem with "people said to be sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics"? Said to be isn't in the words to avoid. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still a weasel word since it's ambiguous. It doesn't mention who is doing the "saying". Said to be by whom? "People"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"said by believers" ? Ties into the second paragraph that way and reads nice. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is flawed:

"In popular usage the term psychic describes paranormal forces and influences, or abilities such as psychokinesis and extra-sensory perception, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — "psychics"."

The dash serves no purpose there. In replace of the dash there needs to be something connecting the word "psychic" with the previous sentence, such as "are called". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't look good, but I can't find a way to replace it easily. This is the best I can come up with, but I don't like it:

Psychic (sī'kĭk) refers in part to the human mind or psyche (ex. "psychic turmoil"). The word is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. In popular usage the term psychic describes paranormal forces and influences, and people sensitive to or able to use such paranormal forces are known as "psychics". The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The dash is a parenthesis basically. It's the same as saying "...people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces (psychics)." A comma can replace it, or it can be broken off to another sentence. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can't really find a way of improving it. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're doing before the dash is spelling out the adjective use, and after the dash the noun use. You could just say in a new sentence "People said (by believers) to have these powers are called psychics". The "by believers" is optional as I really believe it's implied. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skepticism

the skettic dictionary mentioned that a man named edward crookes was the first to describe someone as apsychic mabe this information could be included somewhere int h article? Smith Jones 00:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. See Psychic#Origins. Regards. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice! – Dreadstar † 01:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought so. Nice find Smith. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censored articles?

Why is there a block against articles about Matthew Manning? I noticed "Carlos Suarez" deleted one rather peremptorily. When I tried to enter a fuller, more complete article on Manning, giving plenty of references and citations, it was deleted as soon as I tried to save it. Is there some kind of vendetta going on? Pahuson 05:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean this:

Matthew Manning From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Matthew Manning (born 1955) is a best selling author and healer, and is well known for his purported psychic abilities. As a child he and his family were allegedly subjected to a range of poltergeist disturbances in their Cambridge home and later at Oakham School. Whilst writing a school essay Matthew discovered he had the ability to do Automatic Writing and found that in doing so it would weaken or completely stop the poltergiest activity. He also discovered he could do Automatic Drawing, and claimed to draw in the styles of many famous artists including Pablo Picasso. The events of his childhood and later investigations by Dr. George Owen of the Cambridge Psychical Research Society were published in a book entitled The Link, which eventually sold more than a million copies. Matthew Manning now resides in Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk and focuses his attention on psychic healing.

[edit] External links

Matthew Manning - Official site
Matthew Manning - Psychic Healer
Examples of Automatic Drawings by Matthew

I'm not sure why it was deleted. However I suspect that it was because there are not enough sources besides his own site that mention him. Dig up a bunch of sources where he is mentioned in books, or magazines (which he doesn't publish himself), and you should be OK. It's all about sourcing. Read the Wikipedia guidelines.

If you have another one with that kind of sources, I'd be glad to insert it for you, and then we'll see what happens (: The admin who deleted it said "Biographical article that does not assert significance" so I assume I'm right- see this –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a very good source, but not enough in itself: [7] –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason listed for it's deletion was WP:CSD#A7 (failure to assert importance/significance). The problem is that people create articles about themselves on Wikipedia all the time (even when they aren't notable) and someone not familiar with the subject probably thought it was a "vanity" article or spam. It's not really a vendetta, it's lack of knowledge about who these people are. Vanity articles and non-notable subjects are critieria for speedy deletion, which doesn't require voting or presentation of sources to show notability. That's unfortunate, I think. In any case, here's what you can do about it [8]. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for "paranormal"

In this passage:

The existence of paranormal psychic abilities is highly controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community.

the reason for calling them "paranormal psychic abilities" is that it distinguishes them from stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)