Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

Archive 1 - November 22, 2006 Archive 2 - February 22, 2007

Contents 1 Talk Page Archive 2 A few editing tips for use on this psychokinesis talk page 3 Tactile telekinesis - article disappeared from Wikipedia? 4 Poor article 5 Grammatical forms section removed by editor - discussion requested 6 Comment from 75.81.123.105 regarding Belief in TK section 7 Questionnaire 8 Vandal redirecting telekinesis and telekinetic to a performer's article 9 Negatives belong in a Skepticism, Contoversy, or Criticism section - discussion 10 Bias - "Neutrality check" banner added to top of article 11 Trivia tag?? 12 Unbalanced 13 Proposal to change line in intro 14 Telekinesis vs. Pyschokinesis 15 Article Uncritical

Talk Page Archive

Archive 2 has been created with a link at above right. Archive 3, when needed in the future, should be a new page (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive_3" and the link added to the template on this page's code. Some of the prior talk pages (notably Archive 1) may also have used the refactoring method of talk page management. To view other archived talk pages follow these steps: 1. Click on the "History" tab at the top of this page. 2. Click on any date that you wish. That's all you have to do. You will be taken to Wiki's archived talk page for that date. To find the very first talk pages, click on the "Earliest" link at the bottom of the "History" page and scroll down to the links at the bottom of the page. Permission is granted to copy this notice for use on other Talk pages. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Thank you. 5Q5 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also created Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page on my User Page. 5Q5 18:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A few editing tips for use on this psychokinesis talk page

When discussing quoted material from the PK article, you can place it in a light green colored box by copying and pasting the code below.

Or simply add a wiki quotation tag {{quotation|quoted material}}. The box will be colorless though.

Another method is to just indent one space on the talk page. Include line breaks or it will run as one long line off the page to the right. 5Q5 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indent one space to quote words, phrases, or short sentences.
               You can even move text inward.

Tactile telekinesis - article disappeared from Wikipedia?

An editor rightly removed the wiki link for "tactile telekinesis" that had been at the top of the See also section for a long time because it now just redirects to the PK article. It looks like tactile telekinesis (one way of explaining Superman's and Supergirl's powers) has been deleted by someone for some reason as a wiki article. It can still be found on Google [1]. for at least awhile. 5Q5 15:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor article

This article has little info on for or against psychokinesis. It'd be nice to know the validity of it somewhat :) Genjix 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No one has yet had the ambition take on the work of sourcing such a section.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We can click on "Other Languages" on the left sidebar on the main article and see what's on foreign language wiki pages for PK; albeit in a foreign language. 5Q5 20:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why has no one posted a theoretical point on the brain and strong electromagnetic fields for psychokinesis? I know the science channel did a documentery on it and went in that direction (of course, it was a documentary explaning ghosts and paranormal experiences).

Grammatical forms section removed by editor - discussion requested

Editor Sparsefarce on 19:47, 27 February 2007 deleted the "Grammatical forms" section from Terminology without discussion calling it a "silly section which belongs in a dictionary." The sections been in the article for months without complaint. Any agreement or disagreement on this action. I authored it, but will go with the majority. The article is slim and it was filler material. 5Q5 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The section might be usefull to someone. I would say, keep it for now. True, this is not a dictionary. I would however think that anyone with the ambition to do as much research as has obviously been done for this article would have a full discussion of the scientific results surrounding this phenomenon. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment from 75.81.123.105 regarding Belief in TK section

A person editing the page from 75.81.123.105 added the following to the article. I moved it here since this is where it belongs. --Quintote 16:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The survey question is terrible! If this wasn't presented on the psychokinesis page, a person could interpret it a million different ways none of which would be about psychokinesis/telekinesis. It is true that the word telekinesis was next to this question, but how many people know what this word alone means? For one I only knew the term telekinesis and never knew it went by another name psychokinesis, what if the participant only knew about psychokinesis and not telekinesis? -75.81.123.105

The section was larger at one time with more info (I originated it), but you know wiki editors... everybody's gotta get their tweak in. Here's what it looked like on October 11, 2006. 5Q5 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionnaire

Under "Belief in Telekinesis", there is only a single poll's result. Can this section be filled in a bit more? Also, is there information on where the poll was conducted and the ages, etc. of participants? (Telephone polls should not be the only source of data added, as they are self-filtering; most people when called at home do not choose to take them.) Noclevername 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of polls, which say that the beliefs are widespread. No one seems to have access to the original Gallup (and other) data though. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The published survey is available by following the reference number to the link. I wrote a longer section once (see above). Someone else can try again. 5Q5 18:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal redirecting telekinesis and telekinetic to a performer's article

NEEDS MONITORING: A vandal with the IP 203.115.128.72 redirected the words telekinesis and telekinetic to the article for a Filipino model and TV host Mariel Rodriguez. I was able to fix the redirects. If it happens again, here are the pages where the codes for the redirects can be fixed: Telekinesis Telekinetic. 5Q5 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Negatives belong in a Skepticism, Contoversy, or Criticism section - discussion

I flagged the line in the box below with a "citation needed" because it stands out as too negative as worded and comments like this should go in a separate—referenced— "Skepticism," "Controversy," or "Criticism" section, if someone wants to do that. Other articles have such sections. The article for telepathy has a "Skepticism and controversy" section. The line below could be added to every science article on Wikipedia. There will always be some person or group who doesn't accept something (just ask the hollow earth people). Also the line needs revising. Technically, a skeptic Joe Nickell report on a hoax could be accurate. Maybe a better line would be, in a new "Criticism" section: "Not all scientists accept reports of PK as being genuine phenomena." I'd want to see a specific reference for that; not a reference about the paranormal in general. In accordance with Wiki policy, if no citation can be found after a reasonable time, I propose deleting the line below. The issue is discussed here and can be worked on again at a later date if that happens. 5Q5 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do some research and if I can find an appropriate reference for "Not all scientists accept reports of PK as being genuine phenomena," I'll add it to a new skepticism and controversy section. We'll see. UPDATE: I'm researching, referencing, and drafting a major new section titled "Skepticism and controversy" for the article (the telepathy article has a similarly titled section, authored by others). Should be ready soon. I wrote and referenced over 95% of the current PK article (then tweaked by you all), so if you like my work, more of the same. 5Q5 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias - "Neutrality check" banner added to top of article

I have asked in the Parapsychology talk page for critical attention from involved editors. I feel it'd be rude to do it without comments here, so I'll explain why I think it's needed.

I feel the article shows a clear bias in favor of PK. I think the presentation is done very uncritically. It's written as if it was describing accepted facts, and until halfway through one would think there is no controversy about the veracity of these claims (One passage that I think illustrates this well is "Hypothetically, a person could have very profound telekinetic ability, but not be able to produce any of the additional effects found in psychokinesis, such as softening the metal of a spoon to allow its bending with minimal physical force. Conversely, someone who has succeeded in psychokinetically softening metal once or a number of times may exhibit no telekinetic ability to move objects."). There is an (over?)abundance of references, yes, but they're mostly from favorable sources.

I also noted an important lack of proposed explanations (both physical and biological) for how these things are supposed to happen.

Controversy is presented late and lightly. For example, "Not all scientists and members of the scientific media accept reports of psychokinesis as being genuine phenomena. The topic is controversial, with supporters and detractors." I would expect "most scientists don't accept..." to be more accurate. The article, mainly through use of quotes, creates the impression that there's a sharp division among the (mainstream, if you will) scientific community, which I don't think is the case. An official statement from a major scientific organization clarifying their position would be necessary to make this clear, I think. Also, the word "pseudoscience" shows up only once, in a quote. I believe it's necessary at least to mention that a significant portion of the scientific community regards PK as such.

Lastly, I hope 5Q5 (who seems to have done most of the work here) won't take offense in this. I certainly don't mean to be aggressive or disrepectful. AoS1014 12:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (also added POV-check tag)- AoS1014 17:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply from 5Q5: It may interest you to know that, while being the primary author of this article as currently written, I have also been a member of a skeptics organization for over a decade. Here are some things you should know regarding how the article came to be in its current state:

There are a lot of supporting, often multiple, references for statements because the article was being subjected to a lot of "citation required" flagging by other editors. Nothing wrong with that. Researchers should appreciate knowing that the citations I have provided are very thorough and traceable to a specific page and sentence or phrase in the cited published work. For most references in Wiki articles, you cannot tell if they are genuine or made up.

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not a specialized one devoted to science. What does that mean? It means that entries are not claiming only to have a real world scientific meaning. Psychokinesis is a special case. It is more established in the world of fiction than in real life, at least presently and perhaps forever. Fiction and other entertainment writers need to do research, too. The article is titled "Psychokinesis" and thereby provides information that—because it is not solely a science encyclopedia— may necessarily to some extent seem biased in that it is attempting to give the reader as much information as possible on the topic. What might read as pro-PK material in the article may actually be covering the research needs of fiction and entertainment writers. In the worlds they create for their characters, there is no doubt that PK exists.

I looked for quotes that had a reference to PK. I didn't get them from a chapter on telepathy or remote viewing. Pseudoscience is a point-of-view term when it comes to PK. PK is a research area of parapsychology, which is a recognized science, even by James Randi. See http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/parapsychology.html (I see a possible skeptical PK quote there for some editor to use, albeit from 1988.)

Writing a "Hypotheses" section is a major undertaking. I know people want one, but I currently don't feel I have the proper research materials to do it (read: I don't want to spend lots of money to order lots of books; Wikipedia is an unpaid hobby for everyone except the Wiki Foundation people). I wish others would contribute to the article, but no one really has except for editing my work.

If any skeptics out there want to add more skeptically oriented material, I have this advice:

• Make sure your more skeptically oriented material is traceable to the PK topic.
• More skeptically oriented material is subject to being flagged for lack of a reference, just like the neutral and pro-PK material. Get specific in your citation: quote the page number and sentence on which your material is based.
• If you can find a quote by James Randi, Michael Shermer, Joe Nickell, or a leading scientist or other prominent skeptic saying specifically that psychokinesis or telekinesis is bunk, go for it! I've included such a quote from the Skeptic's Dictionary, a dual-position quote by Carl Sagan, and a problem-with-testimony quote by parapsychologist Richard S. Broughton. Make sure they are actually referring to PK and not just telepathy, remote viewing, or psychic healing. I'm all in favor of providing them a place to go on the record for future generations by including their quote here.
• Please understand that this article also has an entertainment audience.

— Thanks. 5Q5 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

About the line directing the discussion to the Parapsychology page: I think this can actually work (especially if that page gets a little more organized. Then the link should lead directly to the controversy section, maybe? Not yet, though, it's still kind of a mess). I still think the disputed nature of the subject should be made clear right from the introduction. If that's clear, and a more in-depth discussion can be found in the other article, then at least in my opinion the POV tag can go. But in that case, I think the best would probably be to remove the controversy section here and add its content to the controversy section there, leaving only the link (I still think the controversy section here is insufficient). AoS1014 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I put a lot of work in writing and researching the Skepticism and controversy section, so I won't be the one removing it. Thanks for your kind words recognizing my efforts in the article in general. Nice to know somebody notices. 5Q5 20:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase currently in the intro "proposed paranormal ability" was not my writing and seems a little off to me. What do you think if it was changed to "purported paranormal ability"? According to dictionary.com, "purported" means: "reputed or claimed; alleged." The article for remote viewing begins by calling that alleged mind power a "purported ability." Regarding the Skep-Contro section, someone removed the opening sentence: "Not all scientists and members of the scientific media accept reports of psychokinesis as being genuine phenomena." That is a true statement that does not need a reference, whereas if it said "the majority of scientists" or "most scientists"--that would need to be supported by a poll reference of some kind; otherwise it reads as opinion. Even then, that might mean most scientists who bothered to respond to the poll, and like it says (I think) on the parapsychology page, the editors of mainstream science journals have been accused of not allowing research to be published, and thus preventing a true consensus of a position by mainsteam science. I think the opening "not all scientists" sentence could be restored and tweaked if you have any suggestions that would meet your concerns. By "scientific media, I was referring to science journals & magazines, science writers, and the various skeptic commentary publications (including the online James Randi JREF newsletter). 5Q5 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: In opening sentence to article, I changed "the proposed ability" to "the proposed and purported ability." 5Q5 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: In the Skepticism and controversy section , I added quote by American skeptic Michael Shermer on belief in psychic phenomena from his book "Why people Believe Weird Things." 5Q5 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote here to remove or keep Neutrality banner

• Remove. I feel the article is balanced at present to meet the needs of both scientific and entertainment audiences. The article is a work in progress (the "Skepticism and controversy" section was added only four days ago). Any more skeptically oriented additions would have to be thoroughly referenced and any editor is free to add them. I don't feel the article is POV enough at this time to require it flagged with a banner. 5Q5 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Renewing my vote. A lot of changes have occurred in the article and I think anyone reading it would come away with the opinion that "the jury is still out" on Psychokinesis, which is neutral, isn't it? I do feel in the Skepticism and Controversy section, which I just revised and expanded, that there could be some additional introductory lines added to parapsychologist Richard Broughton's quotes at the top. I acknowledge that I wrote them slim. Any help? I feel it's important to list the academic credentials of these major players so that readers can assess the importance of their stated positions on PK. 5Q5 18:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep until a check is made. I have spotted one and changed it, also I notice the use of brackets and some scare quotations. I suggest that the tag should be kept or a WEASEL tag added until the POV is edited out. Shot info 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. (I don't think a WEASEL tag would be appropriate, this is not the article's problem. There was obviously a solid effort to attribute claims, with very few exceptions, such as the passage I cited in my previous post). Two things I think the article needs most are 1)To make it clear from the introduction that this is a disputed subject and that most of the research done by parapsychology is not recognized by most mainstream scientists; 2)To include the official position of major scientific organizations, to better represent the views of the scientific community on the subject and give a better idea of the extent of its acceptance. AoS1014 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Highly biased in favor of skepticism, due to overlarge controversy section relative to other sections, and possibly some other problems. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(Note: On June 9 2007, a major revision and expansion of the Skepticism and controversy section occurred by editor 5Q5, who authored the original. The votes and comments above refer to the section prior to that.)

Trivia tag??

The editor, Android Mouse, who placed a trivia flag on the Cultural references section. Take a look at his contributions log. His sole function on Wikipedia seems to be doing this (hundreds of articles so far). It's his personal mission. He only recently registered at Wikipedia, and he's sending out his created program "bot" all over Wikipedia to automatically flag articles with "trivia." No offense, but... Amazing. I hope hundreds of editors complain to have this stopped. 5Q5 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC)Special:Contributions/Android_Mouse_Bot_3

Vote here to remove or keep Trivia banner

(Note: Voting has closed, banner has been removed and section has been rewritten, making voting irrelevant.)

• Remove. This is ridiculous. It is a very relevant section and quite small. The Trivia article says "Avoid trivia sections in articles." Avoid. It doesn't say they are forbidden. It looks like to avoid Android Mouse's annoying bot, the section will have to be renamed. Any suggestions?5Q5 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Remove, easily. That bot seems to add the trivia tag based only on sections' titles. There seems to be a good amount of complaints on Android Mouse's talk page already. In fact, I'll remove the tag now and rename the section to "Psychokinesis in popular culture". I think that title would be "safe". Of course, if you have a better name, please change it. (But maybe that section could be turned into a simple paragraph?)AoS1014 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the sentences could be strung together without much work. I'll get to work on it. Probably the trivia harassment bot (my opinion) is alerted to the list elements as well. A paragraph probably won't stop unnecessary movie/TV/game additions here instead of the main list where they belong, so that will continue to be a problem. I haven't seen the flag on the main Cult. Ref. list yet. That page actually has a "Trivia" section. 5Q5 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: I rewrote the list as a full paragraph. Hopefully this will avoid reflagging by the bot, unless it also tracks the phrase "popular culture." I guess we'll find out. 5Q5 18:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

This article has a huge criticism and controversy section, and little or no discussion of the data which causes some to believe in the phenomenon. Either the criticism section needs to be reduced to a small paragraph or two, or the article needs to include a discussion of the data, in order to avoid undue weight concerns. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have, however, added controversy to the lead, which should have been there from the beginning. Now, the lead only defines what the term means, and says there is controversy. I took the words like "proposed" out of the definition. That's because psychokinesis isn't a "proposed ability". Rather, it is definied as an ability, just like any other. However, that ability may not really exist. Both facts are now in the lead. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The controversy section is extraordinairily well written, however. It's too bad we can't allow this article the wiggle room to have a good section on the evidence, without having to say "supposed" every other word. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently revising the Skepticism-Controversy section I wrote and adding subtitled sections to make it easier to read. My feeling is that when dealing with such a controversial subject, it is better to quote verbatim the leaders of the debate than for me to try to add my interpretation of their positions. I will include your edits (deletion of link to parapsychology discussion, but not the laws of physics citation tag--I found an appropriate reference). I hope to post it tomorrow morning. 5Q5 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah, that's been my approach in the past, to use quotes, for the same reason. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to change line in intro

I'd like to propose revising this line in the article's intro authored by editor Martinphi. If there is no objection or other suggestions, I will do so next week. 5Q5 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To this:

Sounds more neutral. I think we can assume the debate, whose proportions are hard to document. We can document the "many" in parapsychologists at the Parapsychological Association website- if challenged. And we don't need to document "most skeptics of the paranormal," since they hold this position by definition. I think this pretty much sums up the content of the article- you're right to include fiction. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the change, but tweaked the last part to: "is real or deserving of further study based on eyewitness reports involving hard-to-reproduce spontaneous phenomena. Psychokinesis is a popular ability in entertainment movies, written fiction, and computers games." 5Q5 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Telekinesis vs. Pyschokinesis

Ok, why is this article named Pyschokinesis? The naming conventions for wikipedia state:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

Furthermore, using the Google Test as shown on the wikipedia naming conflict convention garners almost 3 times the results for telekinesis as psychokinesis (627,000 as opposed to 210,000) and searching wikipedia with google finds an even larger discrepancy, (917 TK vs 285 PK). Last but not least, Telekinesis as a term was created before Psychokinesis. So, considering that this is at best a field of study with dubious verifiability in real life, why choose the only-slightly newer, less used and most importantly less identifiable term over the better known? Again, to quote the naming convention "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists". To me, thats telekinesis over psychokinesis to a margin of three to one. WookMuff 00:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I Agree Wholeheartedly LSWSjr 09:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I raised this issue a long time ago (in favor of it being renamed Telekinesis) and I'm the one who did the Google comparison search. (The discussion is buried in the History list, not the archive unfortunately). Anyway, I've changed my mind since doing more research. TK, as the article indicates, is a speciality of PK. TK is (currently) the more popular term only due to the American entertainment industry. In some foreign Wiki articles, TK is the dominant term.I would like to point out that heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction. I do, however, find myself typing in "telekinesis" in the search box whenever I want to locate the PK article because it's a less confusingly spelled word (note how the originator of this discussion section mispelled "Psychokinesis"). In short, I think all is okay the way it is. 5Q5 18:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Uncritical

The article on Psychokinesis is overly neutral and somewhat favorable to the alleged phenomenon. I emphasize the word "alleged" very strongly. All encyclopedia articles are meant to convey facts and information in an objective manner. Above all, they are meant to reflect accurately the findings of science and academia. This article falls short of that. The bottom line is psychokinesis has yet to be verfied by any authentic, objective scientific study. Therefore, it is still in the realm of fantasy and should be treated as such by an encyclopedia. Psychokinesis and other paranormal claims should be prefaced by the words "alleged" or "supposed" or other qualifying words. They should not be written about as actual, established theories or facts. I definitely support maintaining the flag for questioning this article's neutrality until the language of the article is changed to reflect scientific accuracy. Kevin Scott Marcus 05:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Overly neutral? I've not heard that one before. The opening paragraph to the article states: "The position of most skeptics of the paranormal is that psychokinesis does not exist in the real world, but only appears to exist due to fraud or statistical manipulation of scientific data, while parapsychologists say that the ability is real or deserving of further study based on eyewitness reports involving hard-to-reproduce spontaneous phenomena. Psychokinesis is a popular ability in entertainment movies, written fiction, and computer games." It's the spontaneous cases and non-laboratory reports by credible observers like Michael Crichton that perhaps give it a slightly pro stance, but only in the speciality descibed (metal softening phenomena). In some places, the article's real-world and entertainment elements are for now unavoidably mixed together. I'm a long-time member of a skeptics organization in the U.S. As the primary author of the article, I've tried to be fair to both sides. I might believe there is evidence for metal softening, but certainly not human levitation or phasing through matter. I won't personally censor the article for the sake of excessive skepticism. The article has come a long way and is a work in progess. I have no problem with it being permanently flagged with a neutrality monitor banner. 5Q5 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Too much NPOV? :) Errorneous 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor is referring to Neutral point of view (NPOV), the Wikipedia goal for articles. I also wanted to add that I am always on the lookout for recent position statements regarding PK/TK. 5Q5 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)