You're right Milo.  A consensus of scientists in the scientific field of parapsychology.  Only that. Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus in the field. We don't ask psychologists what the conditions are inside a neutron star.  We really don't care what they have to say.  And of course, we would present the viewpoints of the critics of parapsychology, and more so than with other articles on science.  I have absolutely no desire not to accurately present what the critics have to say.

Even if I were pushing parapsychology, I still would not try to censor the critics, because that would only detract from my case- the reader would be able to tell it was a whitewash.

"For stability reasons, I don't think the article can take that approach. It would require constant maintenance and never-ending dispute resolvements."  Nealparr, that is why I'm talking about an ArbCom decision.  I want you to continue with what you are doing.  It is great to get it stable for now with this definition of NPOV.  In fact, I doubt there will be much that is materially different when we get it straightened out.  I wrote everything I wrote from the perspective I would think the article would eventually have anyway.  So you know exactly how I would think it should be presented.  There are only a few tweaks I'd make different, like calling it a scientific field to begin with, and possibly saying directly which types of psi scientists in the field think are real.  So keep doing what you're doing, OK? '''''' (Talk Ψ Contribs)