Talk:Remote viewing/Archive 2

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.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Let's try that again

Back in February, this article was taken off NPOV by a user (who apparently is a believer in RV) claiming that it had been in NPOV too long without a plan to change it. Since the article is still unacceptable, I'm putting it back in NPOV and working on fixing it. As you can see, I've archived the old discussion, as it was long and out-of-date, and we need a fresh start.

There are a couple of huge roadblocks to fixing this article. First and foremost, it's extremely difficult to find an accurate history of RV a online. Do a search for "remote viewing history" and all you get are sights like psitech.net and remoteviewers.com and others who have a clear stake in this and whose journalistic integrity are at best questionable. So, revising the history section will take some doing. ("Considerable work was done, for example, trying to locate Western hostages in Lebanon, and a long, multi-year series of projects were worked in support of US counter-narcotics efforts. Several of these were highly successful and according to intelligence and operational personnel in the joint task forces being supported, remote viewing data led to the capture of traffickers and recovery of contraband." Yeah...I doubt that. Nice use of anonymous sources though.)

Then of course there's the extreme length of this article. I know you guys think every sentence in here is fundamental, but right now this article is just plain hard to read. It rambles. That's no surprise, I mean, it's written by committee and everyone wants to get their 2 cents in. But it needs to be chopped down considerably, or else people interested in RV (but not already fanatics) won't take the time to read it...and nobody wants that.

Third problem: a lack of organization. For example, this page includes links both to the article on Courtney Brown and, for some reason, a page on courtneybrown.com (see link at the very bottom). In fact the sheer number of links on this page is a little daunting, especially considering they tend to heavily favor a pro-RV viewpoint. For God's sake, there's a link here that claims a man can predict lottery numbers correctly. This is Wikipedia? I'm off-topic again.

Now then, my proposed improvements...

I don't hate the "Description" section. Its wording is suspect in some spots and its grammar needs work, but it's not uninformative, so that's a plus. I think a lot of that can stay.

Be prepared: the history section is going to be cut drastically. It's about 5 times longer than it needs to be, and most of the info in there is unverifiable anyway. I'm going to work hard on it though, to ensure that the facts remain (or, perhaps, are introduced). I don't know how I'm going to research this, but gosh darnit I shall.

Applications section: why is this here? History repeating itself?

Criticism section: could be much better. It needs a sense of cohesion, organization. Hell, it needs content. I don't expect much trouble out of that section.

Final reports: I've read this section like five times and I have no idea what it says.

Links: All the internal links can stay. The external ones...a lot will have to go. It might be easiest just to scrap them all. If someone wants these links they can go to Google and get a list almost as long.

Naturally I invite all those of you who are dedicated to NPOV to join in on this article -- it needs your help. I know I'll face a lot of opposition on this from staunch believers in RV. To them I say in advance: you do your cause no service by writing articles like this. As it stands, only a RV enthusiast would believe everything written in this article. Why preach to the converted? In short: don't make this any harder than it already is. Please. I beg of you. I promise, I'm going to write a totally NPOV article. Yes, I'm skeptical of RV, but I'm not going to let that color my wording. I'm going to be totally fair. Just give me a chance. --Malvolio80 01:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


History

I've written the new History section. As you can see, it's shorter by a lot, and hopefully more accurate (some of the info I found didn't jibe with the old Wikipedia version).

During the course of rewriting this section I discovered another page, Stargate Project, which goes into much more detail -- just another reason for us to keep it short on this page. Unfortunately, the Stargate Project page has some serious issues of its own. For one thing, the name is all wrong -- it's "Star Gate," not "Stargate," and "Project Star Gate" is how it's usually called. In other words, it's impossible to find this page unless you look up PSI TECH and click on the link there, which is in fact how I found it. And, of course, it's yet another NPOV page. (On Ray Hyman's negative report: "Based upon Ray’s finding which fitted the political environment of the period, the CIA followed the recommendation to terminate the project." Uh-huh.) Ideally, the bulk of the stuff from Stargate Project can be used to make a Project Star Gate page, which Remote Viewing could link to, thus offsetting some of the history burden.

So how do you like what I've done so far? Feedback appreciated. --Malvolio80 10:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I recommend deleting EVERYTHING that is not SOURCED in this article about a technique that if it were actually useful would be worth trillions of dollars and employed by every major government and corporation. WAS 4.250 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I got most of my info for the history section from the [|| Federation of American Scientists], which was the only trustworthy-looking source I was able to Google. Unfortunately their resources for that page look kind of suspect, but the information I included in the History section -- that a CIA program existed, that money was spent on it, that it lasted x years, etc -- isn't anything particularly incredible. (hey, if MK ULTRA was real, why not Star Gate, right?) Unfortunately I can't get a lot of corroboration, because it's so hard to sift through all the crap to get to actual believable scholarship. --Malvolio80 22:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Out of NPOV again

So, I did everything I set out to do with this article. Did I go to far? Did I not go far enough? Feedback appreciated.

My most important goal was to make this article concise and readable, as before I found it boring and long. I think I've met that goal, so I'm happy. I also cleaned up a lot of grammar, and cut out a lot of questionable claims. Personally I'm very pleased. --Malvolio80 19:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a top notch job! Nice work! I'd give you a Barnstar if I did such things. :) --NightMonkey 22:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

New Edits

At last, someone has decided to make serious edits. Unfortunately they're a tad partisan.

Lest I seem tyrranical for reverting these edits, here's my reasoning. "Remote Viewing skeptics claim it has only a minority acceptance among scientists" -- the added part being the "Remote Viewing Skeptics claim" portion. We say earlier in the article that mainstream scientists consider it a "pseudoscience" -- I think it's verifiably factual that only a minority of scientists believe RV is real. Next up: "Positive results have been repeated under rigorously controlled scientific conditions, in many studies and not only in tests designed and run by remote viewing proponents." Not only is this patently false, but it's a tad out of place under the heading of "Skepticism."

I look forward to edits that actually add content to this page, instead of trying to enforce a point of view. (Though I did like the edit that just randomly inserted a "la la la" in there.) --Malvolio80 19:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

16/10/2005- If anyone wants to do some more research for remote viewing for this wikipedia section, i suggest before editing they get the whole stargate/sunstreak/grillflame/centrelane - still classified sections documents on CD from the CIA or a reliable source because they are now declassifed and available to the public.


Slight Change

I removed this line:

"Some critics liken remote viewing to dowsing, and accord remote viewing just as much validity as that procedure."

Irrelevant point, and anyway, who's to say that dowsing isn't real? --Redxela Sinnak 11:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is very much relevant to this section, see http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html.
Remote viewing is the alleged psychic ability to perceive places, persons and actions that are not within the range of the senses. Remote viewing might well be called psychic dowsing. (emphasis mine)
I'm re-adding it, with the reference. --NightMonkey 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit Link? ;)

I love the new page. It is clear, concise and describes the subject well. I had added a link a long while ago to the old page that might be relevant to the overall topic, but I am loath to open up a "External Links" section for fear of it growing without bounds or relevance. Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode entitled ESP included strong coverage of remote viewing, and had interviews with many Remote Viewing "major players" and even offered a "demonstration" of a remote viewing proceedure.

Here's the link: Penn & Teller's Bullshit, episode ESP. What I wonder is if the coverage of the wider cultural phenomenon of remote viewing deserves coverage here? What do you think? --NightMonkey 08:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hard to say. I've seen the show. Obviously Penn & Teller don't present their views in a particularly NPOV way. Personally I'd shy away from external links unless they really add something to the discussion, and P&T's show kinda doesn't -- it's good at "preaching to the choir," like a Michael Moore documentary for example, but not so good at elucidating facts.
In other news, I agree with that other guy that the dowsing line could go. All because a website with the word "skeptic" right there in the URL calls it "psychic dowsing" doesn't mean that skeptics in general think of it that way. (Personally I see no relation between RV and dowsing, and also no particular difference between RV and ESP and any other psychic phenomena.) I'd be happy to see that sentence go.
Lastly, here are some pieces that have been added to the history section that I'm taking out.
"Although Skeptics of the AIR report point out that the report was only based on only 6 experiments in the last 12 months of the program using remote viewers of questionable accuracy. No data in previous 240 months of the different remote viewing programs were used. Also the protocal was not blind as the viewers were allowed some background infomation, causing possible contamination of results. It was also not noted how or why these experiments were chosen for the study. Given this skeptics claim the report was fatally flawed."
Every sentence a fragment. I'd clean this up, but I have no idea what it's trying to say, so instead I'm just going to give it the axe.
"Positive results have been repeated under rigorously controlled scientific conditions but for the most part only in tests designed and run by remote viewing proponents."
This is an edit from my sentence, which was quite different...
"Positive results have not been repeated under rigorously controlled scientific conditions, and have only been achieved in tests designed and run by remote viewing proponents."
As soon as the people who change this sentence come forward with rigorously controlled scientific experiments that yield positive results regarding RV, I'll allow this edit. Since those experiments DO NOT EXIST, the sentence is going back to its original form. Thank you for your time. --Malvolio80 18:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with most of your points. On the topic of the skeptic.org site, well, it isn't just a "URL", that's the web site for the book "The Skeptic's Dictionary", currently ranked 10,923 on Amazon[1]. Since we can't really be expected to peer into the minds of the mass of "skeptics" out there, and there aren't really any polls that I know of on this topic, we can really only rely on noteable publications, don't you agree? --NightMonkey 10:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I feel ya, but I can't bring myself to agree with you. I consider myself a well-informed skeptic, and I see no connection between RV and dowsing, save that proving either would win you a million bucks. RV is just a more detailed version of ESP; dowsing is a non-psychic, observable paranormal phenomenon which can be both easily disproven (it doesn't work) and easily explained (it's a result of muscle spasms). You may as well call RV "psychic aura seeing." I guess what I'm trying to say is the phrase just doesn't seem to have any kind of meaning or content. --Malvolio80 20:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Science of Remote Viewing

I added a Ph. D. work on the subject. We need good stuff for the readers afterall. Not just journalistic work.Bragador 01:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Oddly, the names of the two researchers that did the actual very legitimate science approach and went on to assist the intelligence community, are not listed. Neither is the book that details exactly how the experiments are done, including a "How To" for anybody to try. I have the book at home, someplace, and will dig it up and briefly summarize here. But even from them, remote viewing was not science, but "statistically significant". This means, if we were out to find some super bad weapon in the hands of uber bad guys in a very large country we couldn't get people into, and the experiment gave us 100 houses, from all the millions as targets, and only one of them was the right place, then it fails the scientific method benchmark, but is still the most valuable spy tool every to come along. The people in the 99 houses that were false hits, may not be happy, though! *smiles*... are people allowed to use humor in Wiki?

Bptdude 22 May 2006 21:57 EDT


I take back the comment about the names of the researchers.

It was in the article: "The process of remote viewing was first developed by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff at the Stanford Research Institute at the behest of the CIA in 1972."

The book is called "The Mind Race", and some of its contents are described in the early paragraphs. I'll still get more specific information about the book, but the name does turn up on Amazon books.

I do wonder myself, that if this is real, its value would be immeasurable, like having a mega-cheatcode in real life. I don't understand the massive Wiki battles on this article. If it is real, even only "statistically significant", I believe its true value is to see the tip of a whole new field of science, as important as quantum physics. So it is worth the gamble to pursue, if results continue to prove positive, if not conclusive, yet.


Bptdude 07:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Bptdude 23 May 2006 02:56


I'll give it a rest for the night after one more comment. In the book, reference is made to two experiments conducted concerning the properties of remote viewing itself.

The first was a measurement of speed, and the results, though sketchy, state that distance is not a factor, and the effect may travel faster than light. I know the laws of physics, and supposedly that is impossible

The second is that experiments were done with one person deep on a submarine, and the ocean water didn't seem to filter or interfere with the reception. This would lead to the possible conclusion that we are not talking about electromagnetic transmission.

Bptdude 07:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Words of praise

The Wikimedia help desk has received information from a reader Juliet.

Just a note to say Thank you!! for Wikipedia!! I checked out "remote viewing" and got a really clear description of it, with the true background of Ed Dames, setting the record straight. I knew I could count on Wiki!

Well done to all who have worked on this article. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange, as this article makes no mention of Ed Dames. It links to articles that do, however. --NightMonkey 02:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, who REALLY knows about remote viewing ?

I know a helluva lot about remote viewing but I get the distinct impression that no matter what I would post here would be deleted by all those who already are convinced that RV is a sham. So why bother. Incidentally, I not only READ books about RV, I wrote one. LOL


I see a lot of people adding a removing stuff. Some of that stuff is interesting and logic (didn't say it was true though) but it gets removed. Also the Mcmoneagle comment that he is one of the most successfull was also true, but it got removed. This kind of info has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the subject as a science. He could be the luckiest in the world, or his clients could be the stupidest I don't care. He IS recognized for for supposedly being one of the best by the proponents..

What I want to ask is WHO actually read on the subject. And WHO did read recent publications on the subject (like the courtney brown book) ? If the other guys that are watching this page just read some articles on the net, this isn't going to work at all. So much can be added to this page. (theories on how it supposedly work, links to the holographic universe theory, links to quantum theory, links to the universal uncounscious of Jung, etc.

I want everyone to stop being afraid of NPOV. Let's make this a good article and for all the controversial points, for crying out loud, just put "claim" and "allegedly" here and there. Bragador 14:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, am not afraid of NPOV. It's what I like about Wikipedia. We are all assumed to be working to keep the article consistent with a NPOV. Your proscription would lead to this article pretty much growing without bounds, for a subject which does not merit great length. Just your suggestion of all of those "links" and just putting "claim" and "allegedly" everywhere makes me shudder - making Remote Viewing seem more legitimate by association with other "grand theories", and bracketing merit-less and unverifiable positions with "allegedly" and "claim" will make the article grow without bounds. And we've had this article grow without bounds in the past, with too many "Inside Baseball" merit-less "controversies" covered, and so many cranks' latest "hypotheses" piled on here, and massive linkspam, that the article was pretty useless for readers. There is really, at the end of the day, one controversy that merits coverage in this article. It is, "Does Remote Viewing work, with a reliability that is significantly greater than random chance?" Anything else is just distraction. The greater cultural phenomenon of Remote Viewing ("Remote Viewing Training, Now At LOW, LOW PRICES!", "Elizabeth Smart is Dead!", "I Remote Viewed Satan, And Now He Won't Go Away!") has also not been covered here, and that's something I'd wanted - because this article's subject doesn't merit inclusion of that, either. Keep it tight, keep it readable, keep it NPOV, and let Google handle the rest. :)
As far as Courtney Brown... Dr. Brown has accreditations for _Political Science_. How does that make him an expert on Remote Viewing? His claim that we can, and have, Remote Viewed various alien races and alien alliances? The possession of a doctorate, or any post-graduate degree, doesn't give one's opinions any greater weight when speaking outside one's focus of study, more so than another person's opinion. So, for our purposes, unless he has a doctorate from MSU (Martian Subsurface University) in Remote Viewing, he's part of the "cultural phenomenon" of Remote Viewing, which doesn't currently merit coverage in this article. However, I could see merit in creating a separate article for coverage of the cultural phenomenon, but I probably won't edit or watch it, because I'd have a stroke trying to stem the tide. ;) --NightMonkey 20:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Good points. As for Courtney Brown, it is easy to discredit a man, but a work should not be discredited based on the beliefs of its author. This is a distinction many forget to make. A PH.D gives someone a good background on how to conduct a project, write about it and defend its position. Whatever the field, that is the goal. If Brown has a PH.D in political sciences, he has that exeprience. After all, nobody has PH. Ds in remote viewing right ? So I say that his work is quality compared to whatever book might be sold in those crazy esoteric shops. In other words, the guy tries to take a controversial subject and start a serious debate on it. Like francis bacon said "Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, but to weigh and consider." Bragador 03:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Whoa there cowboy. A work should not be discredited based on the beliefs of its author? If you were talking about an ad hominem attack, I'd understand. But NightMonkey brings up a valid point: Courtney Brown believes (or claims to believe) that he has remote viewed alien races on Mars, extra-dimensional lizard men, and the ghosts of famous terrestrial religious leaders. Assuming you don't believe those claims, how does this NOT discredit his underlying claim that remote viewing works? The things he claims to have remote viewed are totally crazy!
I would add to this conversation that paranormal psychology aka "transpersonal psychology" IS a field of research. If you're suggesting that a PhD in political science is just as good because there is no field of reseach to gain such degrees in, I would reconsider that point of view. I took a course in transpersonal psychology in university, with a substantial portion spent on research metholodogy. This was part of a four-year honours degree in psychology with its own statistics and research methodology courses. But I suppose I should be respected for my political opinions. After all, I know how to research and write. ;)
I think it might be unfair, for example, to discredit his political science work just because of his remote viewing stuff. THAT would be an ad hominem attack. But nobody's doing that here... --Malvolio80 22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh boy, I'll be the devil's advocate then. I don't believe in his claims but who's to say he isn't right ? After all we don't know lol. But of course I doubt it. The problem is that you can't discredit an author's other work based on his weird beliefs. Your answer is that his latest book is based on the same subject and thus it discredits him. I guess it depends on your point of view. If I believe lions can fly and then write a journalistic work talking about what has been discovered on lions in the past few years, and then add my opinions in a chapter stating that this chapter is based on my thoughts, would that discredit the whole work ? Bragador 22:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's a better analogy: If you believe invisible gremlins live among us and then write a "journalistic" work talking about what's been discovered in the field of invisible gremlin detecting. You CAN discredit an authors work BASED ON THAT AUTHOR'S WORKS (specifically on that subject), which is what we're doing. He's written books about the Martians and Jesus and the lizard people he's seen from the comfort of his living room or whatever, and these books were about remote viewing. It tends to cast anything he writes about remote viewing in an unfortunate light. If the man thinks he's remotely viewing things that we don't think he's remotely viewing, then you gotta think he's not really remotely viewing things in the first place...right? --Malvolio80 02:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL ! Right ! But who said you had to be able to remote view in order to write something good about remote viewing ? Bragador 02:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

WooHOO! What did I stumble into here ? What a messy confusion! This discussion truly reflects the public chaos that was created initially & deliberately as a damage control campaign by the DoD. To clarify matters for you a bit, you must begin at the beginning before the CIA declassified its portion of RV research with Ted Koppels Nightline show in 1995.

In fact, for the decade of the 80's there was a RV "research" program funded by the CIA (of which Ed May & Joe McMoneagle were the main participants) and at the same time there was an "RV unit" that conducted operations, which was funded & housed in the DIA (Fort Meade). The Operational RV unit still has not to this day (1-29-2006) been "officially" declassified, however, it is the one that started making all the noise (publicly) in the late 80's & early 90's with the formation of a private corporation (PSI TECH) by the original (DIA) team members. They used the technology on itself to determine the best route to safeguard it. A private for-profit corporation was their answer to safely usher the RV technology out of the confines of military Intel in order to save it from extinction when they realized they were loosing their annual funding.

The "RV unit" was classified "top secret" under the DIA because it was discovered almost a decade earlier that psychic perception could be trained and learned by anyone. This was the valuable breakthrough that was too frightening to openly release yet too valuable to covet & risk loosing. This small unit of 3-5 trained remote viewers were the team who used the structured set of protocols (previously discovered by Ingo Swan) to provide adjunct lintel to the DIA (which is an Intel collection & analysis agency) when other standard methods failed. The CIA's research program, with Joe McMoneagle as its main guinea pig, ran simultaneously only as a control for gathering ongoing statistics about the accuracy between Intel gathered from natural psychics (joe McMoneagle) as opposed to the trained psychics (aka: the DIA remote viewers).

The original PSI TECH founders were the Intel officers who realized the importance of this discovery - that psychic perception, for the first time in history, had a model & structure so that it could be taught to anyone & learned as a skill. The PSI TECH founders took a huge risk by forming a private corporation in 1989 that used a classified top secret Military technology as its trademarked product. Desert Storm was their first project which helped to save them from being prosecuted when certain folks at the pentagon hired PSI TECH to gather Intel & then & awarded them medals for their successful retrieval of the requested Information, The first article published in the Army times about this incident is here: http://www.remoteviewing.com/remote-viewing-projects/iraq-un-inspection-support/

PSI TECH's main founder, retired from the army in 1991 & was immediately approached by various authors who wanted to tell & sell the story of Americas Psychic Spies. PSI TECH signed a book deal with two separate authors, first Jim Marrs and then Courtney Brown (after Courtney attended PSI TECH's 7- day RV training course in New Mexico).

The history of Remote Viewing becomes becomes banefully degrading in the civilian sector with book deals & promises of big movie deals bating the weak & compromised integrity of accredited professors and decorated military officers who fell into the pit holes of the world of competitive capitalism. The PSI TECH founding officer legally owns 35% of Coutneys Brown first book (originally titled 'Planets of Dust') but then demanded that his name & all names affiliated with PSI TECH be removed from the manuscript after Courtney Brown started edited the final manuscript for dramatic effect to attract Hollywoods entertainment industry (& renamed the book 'Cosmic Voyage').

Meanwhile, back at the DoD, the CIA assumed ownership of the (now defunct) DIA RV ops unit & turned it into a psychic circus by bringing in channelers, tarot card readers & only 1 partially trained RVer. They renamed it "Star Gate" & hired Ray Hyman & Jessica Utts to evaluate its effectiveness. They made it look authentic by including the previous decade of their research notes with natural psychic, Joe McMoneagle (who was originally set up only as a "control" against the trained RVers). The DoD damage control campaign was in preparation for the release of the two books that PSI TECH had initiated with Jim Marrs (at Random House) & Courtney Brown (with Penguin). At the last minute, however, PSI TECH stopped the publication of the Jim Marrs Random house book which (further) enraged Courtney Brown whose publisher was planning to ride the coat tails of the marketing campaign of the Marrs Random House deal. All this occurred in late 1994 so by 1995 when the governments big budget damage control marketing campaign began (11-95) only one book was released on a small scale (Courtney Browns) and the names and authenticity of the book was already very thwarted.

As the history of RV masquerades in the civilian marketplace, it embarrasses the Officers of PSI TECH to watch, as each assertion to tell the truth about RV is thwarted by those who lack integrity and who assert falsehoods under the guise of manipulative nieviete and others with just sell stories for pure materialism or egomania.

PSI TECH students who were regular PSI TECH chat members watched people like Glenn Wheaton sit in PSI TECH's chat room 24/7 for a year until he gathered enough information to suddenly become "a former military remote viewer" himself! Wheaton and Dick Alguire, a 4th generation student of Courtney Browns training school, started the Hawaiian Remote Viewers Guild. An organization that supposedly teaches & sells remote viewing but in fact, is built on the fantasies of grandeur of a formerly enlisted soldier from combat arms (not military Intel) who was looking for a gimmick to peddle to "stupid civilians."

The Government didn't need to waste their time & money on a damage control campaign because between the uneducated civilians and the rivaling retired military folk, mixed in with your typical capitalistic opportunist, the public was sufficiently flooded with misinformation.

It would serve you in your search for truth & facts in this field to look at the dates & the obvious. Educate yourselves a little bit about the Military infrastructure & the business of Intelligence gathering. Also, before you go casting a sinister eye on the corporation who courageously ushered this classified top secret technology into the public domain you might consider that they did this for humanitarian purposes with pure & simple altruism at the core. PSI TECH is also responsible for training the first civilians in this very valuable skill. It was determined by the technology itself that this private corporation was the optimum way to safeguard this technology for future generations. The other obvious that you may have missed is an important one; PSI TECH is self-sufficient and can afford to stand alone and remain purists in order to uphold the standards that this technology deserves.

WP:NOR problem

I'm removing this:

A little discussed skeptical viewpoint is as follows. Since the CIA announced several years ago that the UFO phenomenon of the Cold War was fostered by it and other US agencies to mask the testing of secret aircrafct projects, it is surprising that few have considered that Remote Viewing might best be regarded as a similarly useful distraction. See Remote Sensing.

This was added without sourcing from an anonymous IP. As it stands, it is "Original Resarch", and, as such, is not permitted on WikiPedia. If there are verifiable and reliable sources for this, I'm not against adding a referent mention. However, since, as the parahraph's opening says it is "a little discussed viewpoint", I can't see how it would merit inclusion here. Thanks. --NightMonkey 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I second NightMonkey on that. Always back your entries with a source. Bragador 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

POV remarks removed

I removed both of these paragraphs for being POV:

Most true scientists can safely assume that remote viewing is a load of rubbish, and ignore it for all intents and purposes. Wishful thinking has never counted as a science, even a wish for such a useful skill.
EDIT March 15, 2006 by cjg...RUBBISH: Try reading David Morehouse's personal experience in PSYCHIC WARRIOR and his other more recent books. It isn't something ANYONE can do, you must be open to it, trained somewhat, and naturally talented. Fascinating subject to say the least.

Bubba73 (talk), 04:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Order-based POV - Skepticism before Proponent's Claims?

OK, I might be nitpicking, so I want a sanity check here. Since Remote Viewing is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists, should the "Skepticism" section come before the "Proponent's Claims", as opposed to how it is now? If there's no compelling argument for the status quo within a few days, I'll change the order. Thanks. --NightMonkey 21:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --NightMonkey 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning for placing skepticism before proponent's claims. But if you look at some other pseudscience articles on wikipedia, or any controversial article for that matter, I think you'll find that the topic is explained fully before criticism or skepticism. If someone doesn't know what the topic is about, they might have difficulty understanding why it is being criticised. I won't change anything until further responses. Hope I was clear Joshdboz 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joshdboz (excdpt that I don't understand the reason for putting the skepticism first). This is what I think is a very good format for articles on pseudoecientific articles:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/Green_Cheese_Model_of_Lunar_Composition, and it shows the pro before the con. I wish all such articles used that format. Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I restored the old order, pending discussion. I took a look at that WikiProject template. Some ideas I like, some I'm not sure about. It's rather moot until that becomes something resembling official policy, unfortunately. --NightMonkey 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, on second reading, I can see some re-ordering would keep clarity. However, perhaps a better order is "Protocol" -> "History"-> "Skeptics" -> "Proponents' Claims"? This way, by the time a reader reaches "Skeptics" they might have some understanding of the article's subject. In the meantime, I'm switching it back to how it was, pending discussion. --NightMonkey 03:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking over the article, I think for clarity's sake the order should be somethinkg like "History"-> "Protocol"-> "Proponents' claims"->"Skepticism"->"Trivia"->"Remote Viewers"... But I would support a stronger opening statement that gave more explanation for why it is considered a pseudoscience, maybe just a sentence or two. Joshdboz 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

There has been a merge tag on Remote viewing data connects to religious scriptures for a long time, proposing a merge to this page (following a finding of merge on AFD). Does anyone feel brave enough to attempt the merge, or indeed revisit the proposal and find against it? Kcordina Talk 12:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't see any reason to merge it. Most everything that is there has been removed from this article for POV or noteability (or, reframed for NPOV in the Courtney Brown article), so re-mergeing this stuff would be a null addition. That article should have been deleted, but it looks like it is one of those articles that is "at the edge" of Wikipedia. If this comes up for a merge vote again, I'll vote delete. --NightMonkey 15:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I just looked at Remote viewing data connects to religious scriptures and to be honest it is complete trash. Not only does it have absolutely no NPOV, but it goes way too far into Brown's ideas, jumps around to a whole bunch of other pseudo-stuff, and it is all written incoherently. Why not make a "Uses" section in this Remote Viewing article to cover all the ways it has been used (intel gathering, business, religious whatever, etc). If that were to occur I would renominate the other article for deletion. Joshdboz 00:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Just made a "Uses" section here. If it seems ok with everyone, I will nominate Remote viewing data connects to religious scriptures for deletion within the next few days. Joshdboz 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I am nominating Remote viewing data connects to religious scriptures for deletion.

Changes of 7 and 8 May 2006

On the night of 7 May I created a new Remote Viewing Timeline page, and a Remote Viewing template page that could be added to pages of events and personnel related to remote viewing. I then added the template to each page that seemed to me to be relevant--including, of course, the main "Remote viewing" page this discussion is about.

Shortly thereafter, NightMonkey deleted the Remote Viewing template from the Remote Viewing page with the following comment: "(rv unecessary new "template", linking to a "timeline" that is rife with POV, added with no discussion, with an edit marked as "minor")"

First, I must respectfully submit that NightMonkey is not the final arbiter of what is "unecessary" on Wikipedia, and I also submit that the template I created is entirely relevant to the pages it has been put on, none more so than the main RV page.

Second, my edit was marked as "minor" because it did nothing whatsoever to change the existing content of the main RV page; it merely added appropriate links in a template menu to relevant other pages.

I also respectfully submit that NightMonkey's comment that the RV timline is "rife with POV" is a) generalized, b) unsupported, and c) misplaced, since any real or imagined deficiencies NightMonkey finds in the timline should be respectfully submitted on its talk page, and/or appropriately edited by NightMonkey with verification.

I also respectfully submit that the timeline cites 112 verifiable references, and that it is the result of the combined efforts of eight different researchers spanning more than five years. How 112 different sources compiled by eight different people can be "rife with POV" is a bit difficult to comprehend, but responsible and sourced edits are of course welcomed.

For all the foregoing reasons I am replacing the RV template on the main RV page, and absent sound, specific, verifiable, and compelling good cause, I submit that it should remain there.

Furthermore, I now am replacing the first paragraph of the main RV page with inarguable facts about the inception and purpose of the CIA-initiated RV program that were entirely omitted from the existing opening paragraph. Doing this also removes from the introduction to the page the unverifiable generalized POV that RV is considered a pseudoscience "by mainstream scientists." Whether RV is pseudoscience or not is arguable, and there is no single authority representing all "mainstream scientists" who could support any such egregiously broad statement of POV.

Huntley Troth 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Huntley, but much of this has all been hashed out before. Just having references is not enough. They must be reputable and verifiable. When you say "eight different researchers", and I see that much of the text tries to make a slew of connections between Scientology and Remote Viewing, Remote Viewing and Watergate, and weaves a tangled web of spooks and late-night meetings, uses pretty non-neutral terms like "unholy alliance", and is way too long overall, I see a non-neutral, non-encyclopedic article filled with Original Research (see WP:NOR). My objections to the Template are not as strong as to the Remote Viewing Timeline, but I can't allow the template to be added as long as it links to the Remote Viewing Timeline in its present highly biased form. --NightMonkey 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I nominated Remote Viewing Timeline for deletion. --NightMonkey 23:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

NightMonkey: you persist in slinging generalities and avoid any specific for deleting what I've added: "much of the text;" "a slew of connections;" "weaves a tangled web of spooks;" "way too long overall;" "highly biased form;" "filled with original research." If you persist in such disingenuous and bad-faith tactics and I'll report what you're doing as simple vandalism. Although your generalities are impossible to address, as I believe they are intended to be, and although you persist in putting them on the wrong talk page, I'm going to cite a few of your misrepresentations of the facts for the record:

1) "Web of spooks": The single use of the word "spooks" in the entire article is a direct quote from the cited source, and is properly placed in quotes.

2) "Way too long overall": The article is not a contender in the "long articles" group and its cited content is relevant to the subject, putting it entirely in compliance with the "long articles" guidelines. The published guidelines, not you, prevail on this issue, and it is a non-issue.

3) "Text tries to make a slew of connections": Quote a specific reference from the text or do the honorable thing and retract your unfounded generalized accusation. The entries are records of events. It seems that you are making the connections yourself in your own mind and attempting to attribute your own abhorent connections to the text. The text doesn't "try to make" any connections. It states facts from verifiable sources of information.

4) "Filled with Original Research": No matter if a herd of people contributed to the compilation, there is no "original research" whatsoever in the article; it is nothing but a complilation of information from 112 cited sources, every entry properly footnoted. Your accusation is frivolous, specious, and wholly unfounded. Perhaps this is why you don't quote any specific "original research," just claim it to exist where it doesn't.

I've made a reasoned and good-faith presentation of the research and facts, and attempted in good faith to answer your accusations. You have yet to cite any single unverifiable fact, or actual passage from what you object to--merely claimed violations to exist without reference or specifics, and used your unsupported--and false--claims to justify destroying valuable and properly presented knowledge.

Finally, nothing I've submitted here has "all been hashed out before," because what I've submitted has never been submitted before. And, no, that does not make it "original research;" it makes it a proper representation of verifiable, cited, inarguable fact.

Huntley Troth 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

4) is the point which is really a problem. You say that a "herd of people" made this. But, I only see one Wikipedia Editor - you. But, I've used up my two reverts today. Once again, this article is a magnet for conspiracy POV editors. This time, it's "Remote Viewing was REALLY from the Scientologists via the CIA, and it's REAL, it WORKS and it's HORRIBLE.". Huntley, you are a new user as of April 26. This is not the best way to get aquainted with Wikipedia is to pick a highly contreversial article to go wild on. You should really read up on the working policies here, and try to get a feel for what Wikipedia is here for, and what it is not here for. --NightMonkey 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

NightMonkey, I did not say that "a herd of people" made the timeline, and I don't care to be rewritten by you; I said that even if a herd of people had, it did not consititue "original research" because the only role that the eight people who did contribute to the information over the course of several years of collection of information did just that: contributed information they had collected from verifiable, cited sources. They did not interpret it, theorize about it, opine about it, or "cook" it: they merely volunteered their help on data collection and compilation.

Yes, I am the sole editor who has done the final compilation for presentation here. Nor did I do any "original research." I merely put the material together in time order and organized it for Wiki publishing.

And on the subject of verifiable sources, you several times have raised the issue of sources being "reputable" in the same breath as "verifiable," but "reputable" specifically is not a requirement imposed by Wikipedia. The page on verifiability says specifically: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."

Every cite in everything I have presented is from "reliable, published sources." Specifically, the references in the opening paragraph I have put on this page are:

1) Article by Dr. Kenneth A. Kress published in CIA's own Studies in Intelligence publication, Winter 1977 (includes cite to 1 October 1972 CIA contract, and records of CIA personnel being present at pre-contract experiments with Puthoff and Swann). 2) Hal Puthoff's own "success story" published in an official Scientology Advanced Organization Los Angeles publication in 1971. 3) Ingo Swann's own listing as a completion of a Scientology service "New Era Dianetics for OTs" in Scientology official Source magazine April 1979

None of these valid sources require interpretation, spin, "web weaving," "original research," or any other thing than precisely what they are, exactly as documented in publications fully within Wikipedia guidelines—if not your own personal arbitrarily imposed "guidelines."

The only "original research" I see taking place here is your revisionist history attempts to eradicate these inarguable facts out of existence.

Yes, I am a new user, but I'm capable of reading the Wikipedia policies and adhering to them. I certainly might make mistakes, but some gentle help would be appreciated in that case. Your attempts to ride roughshod over me, and to change incontrovertible facts to something more to your liking, and to eradicate out of existence the hard work that's been done of gathering and presenting a significant amount of useful knowledge are not appreciated, and I have no intention of standing by idly for it.

Huntley Troth 01:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm done with this and related articles for a while, and taking them off my Watchlist. Have fun! --NightMonkey 14:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Connection Scientology - Remote Viewing claims

Any speculation of connection between Scientology and Remote Viewing should be added to the Skepticism or a Criticism section. The introduction of user Huntley Troth seems to be only about Scientology and not starting with a neutral description of Remote Viewing itself.

"Claims" are proven fact of cited record - please stop vandalizing
Since you didn't sign your discussion, I'm assuming you're Rodii. The introduction I wrote says specifically, in the first sentence, exactly what remote viewing is, it's origin, and purpose, and doesn't mention Scientology at all. The paragraph then goes on to mention the Scientologists involved in the genesis of the program in their exactly correct context. That you don't like the facts is not sufficient cause for trying to erase them out of existence, and I would be grateful if you would discuss this before any more such draconian and unsupportable actions. Huntley Troth 18:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, 'twasn't me. A simple check in the history finds this edit by User:Flowingjawa. If you're wrong about something this obvious, what else might you be wrong about? Try learning to use the tools rather than throwing unfounded accusations around next time. · rodii · 18:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Open letter to CIA apologists

From my review of the history of this page, I am astounded at the amount of effort that has been expended by some seemingly small percentage of vocal editors who appear to be on a crusade to eradicte from the ken of man the incontrovertible facts that: A) Remote viewing was initiated by the CIA using public funds (and was continued over decades at a stil-unrevealed cost running into the millions), and, B) the personnel who developed the program for CIA were high-level Scientologists.

Every time these simple, documented, inarguable, germane, relevant, and crucial facts are put into the record, some vandal comes along and attempts to re-write history and soft-pedal all of this accurate history, almost always with a completely generalized, unsourced, POV claim that "mainstream/valid/real/important/most/all (pick your generality) scientists" consider it "psuedoscience."

The purpose of the article isn't to call on a phantom "authority" to tell people what to think: the purpose of the article is to provide verifiable facts, and allow people to make up their own mind about the subject, not have it made up for them.

The issue of science versus psuedoscience is already covered in the body of the article (and not neutrally, by the way), but somebody is constantly coming along trying to force the decision that it's all "psuedoscience" right into the opening paragraph or sentence, and in the same effort erases all mention of the CIA creation of the program and the involvement of Scientologists in its creation.

If you can't confront the facts, why not go edit the Tiddlywinks page or something you can handle, and quit vandalizing the truth about the inception of remote viewing. You don't have to be a proponent of remote viewing or a "believer" to have respect for the actual facts of its origins, and allow them to stand.

CIA apologists: why are you so cringingly afraid of allowing the facts to stand, and to allow others to make up their own minds? Why do you keep trying to cram your own views down the gullets of the people of the world, and cover up the CIA/Scientology genesis of the program like it was something the cat had made in the corner after eating bad tuna?

I respectfully call on you to stop your insupportable and intolerable vandalizing of facts, and to stop calling on false and unreferenced "authorities" (that don't exist) to back up your own unciteable conclusion and belief that it all is, and always was, "psuedoscience." If you have a so-called "authority" that says so, cite the source. And stop trying to rub out of existence facts that don't fit your own model of what the world should have been and should be.

The current opening paragraph is 100% sourced with the CIA's own article on it in "Studies in Intelligence." If you haven't read that seminal document concerning the origins, and the entire Remote Viewing Timeline, you are woefully uninformed of the facts.

It is what it is, and what happened is what happened. Stop trying to cover it up. Huntley Troth 17:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations that editors that disagree with you are CIA apologists are a little uncivil, I think. Please remember that at Wikipedia we assume good faith about other editors. I think if you read your version of the page again you will notice that the section you want to add as the lede is almost a verbatim repeat of parts of the later History section. So one obvious motive for the edits you decry is simply that the article is structurally flawed. You might want to turn the self-righteousness down a tad.
That said, I've made an attempt to reorganize the lede that makes your concerns a little more explicit. I think you and your critics are talking at cross-purposes here, because there are two separate issues and two separate types of skeptics. Some people believe in remote viewing as a phenomenon independent of the CIA narrative, and think that's the interesting element of this article; some people are skeptical about this, as they might be about any other type or mystical or parapsychological claims. Another group of people believe that the CIA, with significant Scientological involvement, invested heavily in investigating remote viewing, and that they have the qacts to prove this; another set of skeptics sees this as tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that has been sufficiently debunked. The two sets of proponents and skeptics are not necessarily the same.
So an edit that is primarily concerned with getting the parapsychology-skeptical viewpoint heard is not necessarily an attack on the CIA-narrative viewpoint, but emotions run high here and people don't always think too hard. At Wikipedia, however, we have to take a neutral point of view, and in cases like this where there is no consensus (none possible, really), that means reporting the several points of view as clearly as possible, with verifiable sources. The lede paragraph in particular has to stick to a neutral formulation, and leave exploration of completing claims for inside the article.
So I've tried to effect a reorganization that acknowledges the controversy in the first section, then explores the paranormal claims, then the CIA controversy, with attemtion given to both sides. I've included a couple {{fact}} templates and suggest that all sides be given space to justify their claims--but remember, we are not trying to establish here which side is correct--we are simply reporting on the claims that have been made in verifiable sources. The fact that you think you are correct cuts no ice with the other side, who think they have sources too. We simply lay the arguments and the sources out, and let it end there. If you want to argue that your version if the correct one, go ahead, but do it elsewhere. · rodii · 18:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I'm not a "CIA apologist", and you might consider how throwing terms like that around might damage your standing with other editors like me who are genuinely neutral.
  • I've reverted to my pervious version, which I think is genuinely more neutral than either yours or JzGs. You're wrong to characterize it as a revert--I rewrote the first section and reorganized the structure of the article. You, on the other hand, are about to be in violation of the three-revert rule. I suggest you participate here in a discussion (which is not the same as writing "open letter"-style rants and imaginary agendas) and we work together to find ways to improve the article (which is not the same as insisting that your viewpoint is the only correct one; see m:MPOV). · rodii · 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Rodii, the origin and personnel of the CIA-initiated remote viewing program is not subject to "debunking" or opinion; it is a matter of CIA's own history of the program--the cite to which you have edited out of existence in the article, while also vandalizing and adding false coloration to the link to the cite for the CIA contract. So the first question is whether you've read the CIA's own history of the remote viewing program or not. Have you? The next question is your cite for any claimed "debunking" of the CIA's own published history. What is your reference?
As for reversions, you, too, continue to revert to what you characterize as a "reorganization," when what you've actually done is taken the incontrovertible facts I had put in the opening, and disingenuously placed them under a heading falsely labeled "Controversy over CIA's involvement." That you believe there is a "controversy" over CIA involvement is a giant red flag indicating strongly that you are ignorant of the CIA's own history of the program. You have therefore manufactured a "controversy" where none exists except for those who haven't been honest enough in research to inform themselves of widely available facts and sources of information.
My opening paragraph takes no POV whatsoever. It cites verifiable facts of origin and purpose, taken directly from the cited sources. Your opening paragraph claims a false "authority" of "the scientific community," of which you have not been elected spokesman. The "citation needed" code is not intended for broad generalizations for which no citation is possible, and does not ameliorate in any slightest way the egregious POV you personally created in the lead, then abandoned responsibility for by claiming to be "neutral."
I am reverting what you've done, which I have little doubt you will undo in an editing war, in which case I am going to take it to dispute resolution. Huntley Troth 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong again, as usual. I don't have a dog in this fight--I was merely trying to develop a compromise. Your hostility and you allegations of vandalism are unwarranted, but that's your perspective. *shrug* (I'm not being illiterate in using "lede," btw--like "hed," it's common news style.)

That contract

What the link shows is a partial copy of the contract, wrapped round with some pro-RV editorialising. This is not from a reliable source. It is cited in the revised version, but it is likely that the idea of remote viewing existed before the CIA contract, since the CIA is not in the business of inventing supposed psychic phenomena. Above all, the lead should start as it starts now: Remote viewing is the supposed faculty which enables a percipient, sited in a closed room, to describe the perceptions of a remote agent visiting an unknown target site. Just zis Guy you know? 22:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It should only stand with that definition if the audience is people who should never be alllowed a ghost of a chance of finding out what remote viewing is. The vast bulk of remote viewing experiments had absolutely no "remote agents." The ignorance of the subject inherent in definition above is as vast as it is inexcuseable, particularly in two people Tweedle-Deeing and Tweedle-Dumming themselves up as "authorities," issuing pronunciamentos of "pseudoscience," while eradicating accurate and sourced statements of the purpose and origins of RV written by someone who's done a six-year intensive research project of the available material.
As for the link to the contract reference, please cite the specific language you label as "pro-RV editorialising." I don't see any such thing at all. Furthermore, the actual article from CIA's own publication where the reference at that site was taken from had also been cited, but Rodii kept erasing that link--which you apparently condone and support. Meanwhile, the link to the contract page I cited is fully a "verifiable source" within every Wikipedia definition of same, and it, within it, also correctly cites the original source so anyone can verify that the contract was indeed issued by CIA, exactly as admitted by CIA in their own publication.
As for "it is likely that the idea of remote viewing existed before the CIA contract," the entire history of it is in the Remote Viewing Timeline, which apparently you haven't read. The term "remote viewing" was coined on 8 December 1971, at almost the exact time that Ingo Swann was being connected with CIA's Cleve Backster in New York.
But frankly, this entire exercise has become a frustrating waste of good, solid, sourced research because of the continual vandalism by the local Gods of Pseudoscience POV, who apparently run the show around here, and are going to make sure that honest, factual information gets erased as fast as it's posted when it doesn't mold to their own model of the universe. Huntley Troth 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Correlation does not equal causation.
Platitudes'R'Us.
Even if the term was invented solely for the purposes of giving the programme a suitably catchy name, I find it hard to believe that it sprang fully-formed from that one contract.
Catering to your belief system is not one of my goals. Define "it." If "it" refers to the "CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing at Stanford Research Institute" (the title of a report by Dr. Harold Puthoff, founder of the program), where do you "believe" it "sprang from"? Virgin birth? The Big Bang? Vishnu?
Much more likely that the CIA, in their role as co-ordinators of cross-agency investigation into supposed paranormal phenomena (which appear to have been more widely accepted in those days) contacted someone they had heard of and knew to be working on such things.
Yes, they did contract someone working in the field of parapsychology. That's exactly what the lead I wrote said. That's the lead that you're here arguing against. Perhaps I should hire you as my advocate.
The idea of the CIA actually inventing anything at all is pretty absurd.
Isn't it though. That's why I never made any such claim. They initiated a program that ran for at least 20 years. Dictionary.com can help you sort out the difference between "invent" and "initiate." I don't have time to do remedial tutoring.
Incidentally, your reference to the timeline is a circular argument, csince it has the same source as the claim in this article. Just zis Guy you know? 08:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your allegation is false and very confused. The timeline cites 117 sources, the one relevant to this specific discussion being the CIA's own publication, Studies in Intelligence, specifically an article by CIA's Dr. Kenneth Kress, "Parapsychology in Intelligence: A Personal Review and Conclusions." I've thoroughly covered this with you on the Remote Viewing Timeline discussion page. That I have also cited in places, for convenience, a relevant excerpt from the article at a web site that is commonly referenced by other editors on Wikipedia doesn't alter the fact of the perfectly cited reference to the CIA article itself, from which that website got their information. Have you ever read the CIA article or not? (Why do I feel certain that, just as with Rodii, who you're here to champion, I won't get an answer to this excrutiatingly germane question? Do you think I might be RVing?) Huntley Troth 15:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Pseudoscience Identification Pseudoscience

Quoted from a different page, relevantly on this subject:

Hello Just zis. You wrote on my talk page: "Please note that WP:NPOV requires that we clearly identify pseudoscience as such." Ignoring the fact that the "identifying of pseudosciences" is the biggest psuedoscience that ever blighted the pursuit of knowledge, even ignoring the fact that the NPOV page says not a syllable about "identifying psuedosiences," the entire issue of pseudoscience vs. not pseudoscience is a straw man, since the pseudoscience discussion within the body of the RV article had not been altered at all by me. Not a syllable or punctuation mark. I had left it entirely intact--even though the way it was written violated NPOV. So if you have anything that's actually relevant to what has taken place over the past 24 at the Remote Viewing page, I'd welcome your input on it's discussion page. And as it stands, the "pseudoscience" reference that Rodii has repeatedly wedged into the lead for the article is an absolutely flagrant violation of NPOV, and cites not a single source. The lead I had written, and which he repeatedly has replaced, had no POV whatsoever, and merely gave a factual, fully referenced statement of the purpose and genesis of Remote Viewing. Since you clearly are of the rigid POV that you have "identified a pseudoscience," it isn't terribly surprising that you line up on the side of the pseudoscience POV lead written by Rodii, however much it violates the ruling policies of Wikipedia. Perhaps moderating itself has become a pseudoscience, but I don't have a degree in "identifying pseudosciences." Where did you get yours, by the way? Huntley Troth 01:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Science can be replicated by a sceptic following the experimental protocol, pseudoscience is stuff stated in quasi-scientific language but which fails that test of the scientific method. As stated on my talk page: please cite a single instance of anybody not already committed to the idea who has successfully replicated the supposed experiments. Just zis Guy you know? 08:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No, "pseudoscience" is a school-yard perjorative, used almost exclusively to fling at programs and efforts dealing with parapsychology. If there were any shred of integrity in such dung-slingers, they would accurately call it "parascience," not "pseudoscience." Parapsychology and material sciences are not even in the same class of discipline or study, so for materialist scientists to grunt up a petty perjorative like "pseudoscience" to snicker-snack with against something not remotely in their field is pseudoparapsychology and pitiable. I've never seen a "pseudoscience" mud-slinger who could mount anything even resembling a cogent and honest argument without trotting out the "pseudoscience" name-calling. Can you? I won't hold my breath.
As I've said, labeling things "pseudoscience" is itself a pseudoscience, an entertaining irony to people who aren't religiously committed to the idea.
I'm going to respectfully ask again that you recuse yourself from all discussion and purported "moderation" of remote viewing pages. I don't know if it's even perceptible by you how blatant your bias is--which you try to pass off as "neutrality"--but it's about as subtle as walking out in the street without pants. Such prejudice has no place in fair and disinterested moderation, and I urge you to honorably turn the moderation over to someone who honestly is neutral, and doesn't feel the need for flinging empty, irrelevant perjoratives into reasoned discussion. Huntley Troth 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is that which purports to eb science and is not. Which fits this just nicely. Per WP:NPOV we do not represent things as being real when they are not. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Copywrite Violation

I haven't been to this article in a while, and cannot comment on the large changes that have been made. However, the first sentence/definition seems to me to be a problem. While it is appropriately referenced to [2], it is also an exact copy of his first line. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're citing word for word, don't you at least need some quotation marks to make it completely clear that this is a copied statement? Joshdboz 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Long-stable, consensus-built revision reference

For reference, here's the link to the page revision before these latest series of edits begun by User:Huntley Troth: 00:51, May 7, 2006 NightMonkey. Compare for yourself and decide which is better. --NightMonkey 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly prefer your opening paragraph NightMonkey. On the other hand, I think that the RV timeline (sans the conspiratorial CIA "mind control" parts) provides some additional detail on the origins of the SRI RV protocol, which might be considered for inclusion in the main RV article (perhaps under Protocol). GreatGatzby 13:36 18 May 2006 (PDT)
Two comments:
1. Somewhere along the way the section "Uses" was deleted, replaced with a long-POV "Applications", which itself was just recently deleted. I had created the "Uses" section as the result of a merge and delete decision on a seperate article, and I believe that a "Uses" section should exist here in some form or another. It should mention the military/intelligence applications as well as private sector applications and esoteric applications.
2. I think the section now labeled CIA-controversy-something-rather should be renamed History. The current title is somewhat POV and also inaccurate, for DIA if not other government agencies were involved in remote viewing from early on.
Just my 2 cents Joshdboz 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Restored. --NightMonkey 23:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong thumbs up. Thanks for your work. · rodii · 12:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

There is a serious lack of sourcing in this article. The Proponents Claims section has references to Targ's work, but they're not properly cited. The Skepticism section is all "some critics say" but those critics are for the most part not cited. There is one cite, to skepdic.com, but I can't get the link to work, and, I'm ashamed to say, I can't hack the format. Most of the rest of the article has wikilinks here and there, but not much to support various specific claims.

I put in a couple {{fact}} templates, and I removed one claim entirely, that of pseudoscience, as simply too pejorative to survive without a cite. I will note that saying "RV is pseudoscience" seems like a malformed claim anyway--what the critics would be saying is that the alleged experimental validation represents pseudoscience, not remote viewing itself. I don't see much value in putting that claim back--if you want to debunk, strengthening the citing on the Skepticism section would be more productive. (Please note that I think RV, and all types of ESP, are hogwash--I'm challenging this in the interest of a better article, not because I believe in RV, so please don't bother attacking me on those grounds.) · rodii · 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Monthly statement

I edit lots of pseudoscience articles, among others, and wanted as a matter of courtesy to let editors here know where I am coming from. Please check my Editing principles for pseudoscience articles. I'm always keen to talk and try to reach consensus. I might add that PS is a legitimate English word and we don't need a source if the cap fits - but see my reasoning on the link just given. Mccready 02:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

value of person and activity if proven

I saw the edit and then removal of

One would imagine that people who possess real remote viewing skills would be enlisted by the police to find murder victims, kidnapped people, locate culprits etc. and they would be invaluable as spys and for military use. There is no firm evidence of any success in these areas either.


Did you ever what would happen to a person who was found to have a high level of repeatable and proven success? You think they would volunteer to help local police find a few bad guys, like other people volunteer to work the recycle center? Invaluable as spy and military use is a gross understatement. If the person was stupid, he would be sealed away like a lab rat. If the person was smart enough and ambitious, he could quickly dwarf Bill Gates in wealth and could alter the global balance of power. If the person was truly smart and of good heart, wouldn't he be best to never let anybody know, and carry the secret power, like a hobbit carrying the Ring? Think what could happen in the media. Who would the person turn to or trust?

Bptdude 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

selecting a method to test the theory

I removed the part of the article about somebody claiming it being so easy to prove or disprove. I did this because the person, a skeptic, is creating a test they assume would be valid, when in fact, they are really trying to convince themselves it is not true by their own means. This really is a bit silly. If I said I could turn lead into gold, and had a valid repeatable method to do it, would we listen to a person who says it can't be done, because of how he would imagine it to be done?

The book by Targ, "The Mind Race", details in plain english, the simple and scientifically valid methods of proving or disproving, that can be repeated by anybody with no cost or special equiptment. There are also several people who have made entries in this very Wiki article that claim the ability to do this successfully. While I'm not stating remote viewing is true or not, I am stating that only the testing methods of the proponents should be used, as long as they seem rational and open.

I would copy the method described in the book, but that would probably be a copyright infringement. I bet that if Russel Targ was contacted he would probably approve of the few pages of his book to be placed in Wiki, that details the simple experiment.

Bptdude 04:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

value to accepted science even with high error rate

Even if the error rate is high, which it is known to be, the benchmark for validity is merely what is known as statisticlly significant. This means that in a controlled testing environment, the experiments can beat truly random results in repeated tests where the testing methods themselves are considered valid. This does allow for a very high error rate.

In other words, even if the CIA, or anybody else, found the output to be too erratic to be of useful value, if the tests are statistically significant, it shows the tests are tickling something in the world we live in. It is very possible then, the given the nature of what we are talking about, we have the gotten the screwdriver just under the lip of the lid of a whole new can of worms in science. However trivial the results may seem, if the results are valid, and not some hoax, then we may be looking at something that hasn't happened in many decades in science, the discovery of a new law of nature.

Wouldn't that be worth the chase for truth?

As for the story of the CIA: in the book "The Mind Race", Targ states that the CIA did eventually find one person who could provide reliable results. The person was given a high level of protection and provided outstanding value. The Russians somehow found out and put a bullet in him, ending the project. This seems to be a far fetched story good for the making of a Tom Clancy movie, I know. The title of the book "The Mind Race" refers to a military race like an atomic bomb race or a missle race. I could only guess, that after that point, if the story is true, that the Russians and Americans came to some kind of agreement to mutually stop, similar to a missle treaty.

Also, in general, the Russian people believe in things like ESP more than Americans, and take the view of it being some vague little understood mystery of science. Americans, in general, either dismiss the whole concept as hooey, or link it to religious or occult forces, either good or evil. I do find that interesting.

Anyway, I'm going to edit the article now.

Bptdude 04:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

paranormal link removal.

I removed the yellow box declaring this site being added to the Wiki paranormal project. Please don't be offended.

The whole point of the chase with remote viewing was to approach from a scientific perspective one aspect of what people considered supernatural. Of all the supernatural beliefs and paranormal activities, the remote viewing was considered to be maybe real and to be tested and used under rational normal scientific method. If you believe this pursuit to be bogus or not is not the issue.

To declare the site a member of a paranormal group and sport a banner as such at the top of the page, is kinda like awarding Issac Newton the "Medival Wizards Awards for Alchemy" for his work with the mysterious dark secrets of gravity. It is an insult and an attempt to compromise the entire work of the project.

It is also very misleading to people visiting the page, and will turn many away, as they will assume this is not the place to find a rational discussion.

The proponents, like Russel Targ, are real leaders of science in other more accepted fields working for places like NASA and claim to have funded projects from the U.S. government for research in this field.

Bptdude 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an objection that sometimes comes up with the Paranormal tag. One of the Paranormal project's goals is to make sure paranormal subjects are covered in a NPOV way--they are not just a bunch of true believers with a pro-paranormal agenda. One of Paranormal's main tasks is identifying and categorizing Wikipedia's many paranormal articles. Sometimes it is difficult to see where to draw the line, but in this case it is obvious. Remote viewing is paranormal by definition--regardless of whether it is true or not. I am replacing the tag. Puddytang 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Two per cent success rate

Does anyone have a reference for this? It's usually implied that it comes from Utts' paper for AIR, but when reading the paper, I can't actually see where she says it. Does anyone have a quote? Ersby 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

``` Here's the direct quote from the cited Utts,Josephson, 1996 paper "gifted subjects were able to achieve consistenty about 27% success rate when 25% was expected by chance" (27%-25%= 2% above chance. This is clearer to the casual reader). User:Kazuba 29 Sept 2006

Well, that'll have to be changed. Apart from anything else the "two per cent success rate" makes it sound like they were successful only two percent of the time. Also, in the context of the article, it appears that this quote is taken from the AIR report (the Mumford, Rose, Goslin one), but it isn't. It's from another article entirely. I'll take another look at it when I've got some time. Ersby 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I changed it to a quote from the paper in question. It makes more sense now, especially since the 2% figure didn't refer to remote viewers. Ersby 07:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ersby, I have discussed this issue with Kazuba at some length and he is well aware that there are far more positive statistical findings available, but it is his POV that these statistics are not trustworthy. For example the Remote Viewing examination by Edwin May found odds against chance of 10 20 to 1, which is more than a billion billion to one. There is also the work by PEAR, which came to similar odds of 100,000 to 1, through to 100 billion to 1. I would be grateful if you would include these in the article for the benefit of readers who may wish to make an informed decision on the matter. I have noticed this 2% statistic in several articles now; I feel it is very important it gets balanced out with other studies and papers. For example outside of RV, there is also the Ganzfeld work, that has produced odds against chance of 29 quintillion to 1 (this analysis was also checked for file draw problems using a funnel plot). Best wishes - Solar 12:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Solar. I also think the statistics regarding remote viewing (and the ganzfeld figures you reference) are untrustworthy :). However, my issue with the 2% figure is not that it is accurate/inaccurate. Rather, that it doesn't refer to the topic in question. In the Utts/Josephson paper, the 27%-25% figure refers to a forced choice ESP meta-analysis. It doesn't refer to remote viewing experiments at all. I put in a quote from Utts' contribution to the AIR report that I think is a fair representation of her conclusions (it's taken from the abstract, if you want to check). 217.206.187.69 13:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand that many people looking at these figures my feel they are untrustworthy, I personally would need more information than I have access to at this point before making a judgment, but the figures should be included for the sake of NPOV and to show a more balanced article. I will not be adding them personally as I don't want to take on any more articles in terms of editing at this point, but as mentioned above I would be grateful if you or another user would add them "for the benefit of readers who may wish to make an informed decision on the matter". Thanks - Solar 13:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but the statistics are so complicated, especially once you start to explain both sides of the argument, that I don't see how they could be quickly dealt with here.
By the way, I saw on the Utts/Josephson paper were it could be construed that there's a 27% figure attached to the remote viewing studies, but the wording is vague. And it doesn't make much sense, since I'm pretty sure that most of the RV carried out by the DIA/CIA didn't use 25% as its mean chance expectation. Ersby 14:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


```Hello Ersby. I beg to differ with you. The paper I cited is a later study than the one you mention. At first they got about 5-15% about the same as the Ganzfeld eperiments. It looks like they did a later study. This paper is also cited by the Parapsychological Association at Member line articles. Chance has always been 25% even in the Ganzfeld experiments. You are picking one out of four. The hit rate has never been large numbers. It has always been close to chance. I do not think 2% OVER CHANCE is easily confused with 2%. If it is, perhaps it can be spelled out to make it clearer, rather than deleting the figures all together. There should be figures here. Added required quote. User:Kazuba 7 Oct 2006

The Utts & Josephson 1996 paper is quite different to Utts' 1995 contribution to AIR's report. Meanwhile, I'm not at all sure that "Chance has always been 25% even in the Ganzfeld experiments." In "Target and sender dependencies in anomalous cognition experiments" from SAIC (1994) they use target ranking, not picking one out of four. A this is not the only example of remote viewing experiments using direct hit scoring.
My own opinion is that the Utts & Josephson paper is unnecassary, especially since 1995 quote from Utts is clear enough. Anyone wanting to investigate the figures more closely can follow the links. Ersby 10:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

```By not offering the Utts & Josephson paper the story of the Remote viewing experiments is incomplete. Here we have a final, second look, with clear mathematical data. Utts made the statement parapsychology is comparable with other sciences. Parapsychology is not comparable to other sciences. It is the only branch of science that has, and had, a history with the involvement of magicians as consultants and critics. (to its advantage) Other sciences have made a fair amount of progress in a hundred years. The progress by the American Psychical Research Society and Parapsycholgy Association has been minimal. A close look at Dean Radin, four times past President of the Parapsychological Association, attending a spoon bending party, bending a spoon with his mind, and a critical examinination of his creative quotes and questionable data in his book," The Conscious Universe" and Radin's dismissal from the UNLV, without ever teaching, may present clues to the reasons parapsychology has lagged behind.(and probably always will.) Parapsycholgy has earned its poor reputation in the world of science. (by many times jumping the gun). Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot, at this moment, think of any other science including psychology and psychiatry that has stressed the importance of belief and dismissed the possibility of delusion. User:Kazuba 8 Oct 2006

I agree with your criticisms of parapsychology. Don't get me wrong - I don't think that RV actually exists. My issue is that the Utts & Josephson paper is unnecessary. The AIR paper gives much more statistical information than the Utts & Josephson paper and is more valuable a reference for anyone wishing to research this topic from scratch. The quote from Utts comparing RV to other established pehnomena is a valid inclusion since it is clearly marked as Utts' opinion and that is all. Ersby 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

```Hi Ersby Took a closer look at the data. Non-specific government experiments. Vague. I agree. Deleted the material. Thanks for pointing out my error. I too "jumped the gun". "The absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence". Is a delightful catchy phrase. It can be applied to anything not found. My favorites are: the enormous collection of gold Satanic four sided triangles, Noah's ark, the alien flying saucer and the gigantic bodies of Jesus, Buddha and Bigfoot buried beneath the White House by Harry Truman and the US Army engineers. I don't think they will ever be found. But that doesn't mean they are not there. Of course, I could be mistaken. User:Kazuba 9 Oct 2006

No probs. :) Ersby 13:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation requests

I've inserted numerous citation requests. RV has many, many sources, and so I think this is fair and I think the citations would be easy to come by. And the text obviously comes from a published source. I also deleted one POV statement which, in the form it took, was not supported by the source mentioned (though not cited). Let's either cite it or delete it. For those who believe in RV, this is the only way to keep people who like to throw around the word "pseudoscience" from deleting it in the end. I'll only delete it if no one cares enough to source it after a goodly bit of time. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No mention of the CIA? An article about RV that contains no information about Remote Viewing?

The main fame of remote viewing comes from the CIA's research. How can this article discuss remote viewing without even mentioning the CIA. The article used to say:

The idea of remote viewing was first developed by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff at the Stanford Research Institute at the behest of the CIA in 1972. The program, initially codenamed Scanate, apparently came as a response to Soviet research into psychic phenomena, on which the USSR was believed to have spent 60 million rubles in 1970. Initially, the project focused on a small number of individuals who appeared to show potential, most famously New York artist Ingo Swann.

The program went through a number of changes over the years, both in structure and in name. Later code names include Gondola Wish, Grill Flame, and in 1991, Star Gate. Over the course of twenty years, the United States spent $20 million on Star Gate and related projects. Over the course of its existence more than forty personnel worked on the project, including more than twenty remote viewers. Though the program was classified throughout its existence, columnist Jack Anderson wrote about it in the mid-1980s. Since 2003, documentation relating to the Scanate, Grill Flame, Gondola Wish and Centrelane programs has been mostly declassified (1% or less remains classified) and is available to the general public under the FOIA.

Concerns about the program's effectiveness led the CIA to contract the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to provide an evaluation. This showed no evidence supporting claims of paranormal ability.

Since the end of the government's involvement with the Stargate Project, remote viewing has entered the private sector. Companies such as PSI TECH claim to teach remote viewing procedures, and numerous books on remote viewing history and methods exist.

I realize this isn't cited properly, but it should be easy to find out if these FOIA documents actually exist. Is the CIA embarrassed that it spent 20 million researching an effect that doesn't exist? The article isn't complete with out a mention of CIA research and Russian research. It is also incomplete without a discussion of the protocols--which is the only thing that distinguishes "remote viewing" from regular old ESP! Oh, and those protocols derive from Scientology which is also not even mentioned. It also needs to mention "paranoid views of the CIA": the theory that Remote Viewing worked so well that they set up a bogus group for the AIR to debunk, just so they could keep it secret. This article is bad! Maybe we should restore an older version with a bunch of reference tags so we can collect the references--this is kind of hard to do when the article has been deleted down to where it contains almost no information. Puddytang 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I added some heavily referenced stuff about the CIA and scientology, but I wasn't able to find out anything about the actual protocols or that they are similar to scientology methods. The article still needs stuff about the place of RV in conspiracy theory as well as the private corporation that practiced it. Also I believe RV was only ever used as an adjunct to conventional intelligence gathering. Puddytang 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

i hadded a popular section about eragon is that okay? Smith Jones 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The AIR report used a few experiments conducted at the end of the program, it is not clear why these experiments were conducted or why they were chosen by the CIA for assesment according to Ret, major paul smith who was in the unit.

Some verifiable information from reliable sources would be handy in the discussions mentioned above. Shot info 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RS?

Is this site [[3]] remotely a RS? Shot info 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)