In the criticism and research section: '....various critics have classed the field as pseudoscience. This has largely been due to lack of replication of results by independent experimenters'

The references for this statement are as follows:
 Hyman, Ray (1995). "Evaluation of the program on anomalous mental phenomena". The Journal of Parapsychology 59 (1). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600. Retrieved 2007-07-30. 
 ^ Akers, C. (1986). Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology, Advances in Parapsychological Research 4. PesquisaPSI. http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html. Retrieved 2007-07-30. 
 ^ Child, I.L. (1987). Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology, Advances in Parapsychological Research 5. PesquisaPSI. http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html. Retrieved 2007-07-30. 
 ^ Wiseman, Richard; Smith, Matthew, et al. (1996). "Exploring possible sender-to-experimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld experiments - Psychophysical Research Laboratories". The Journal of Parapsychology. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809. Retrieved 2007-07-30.

The way in which this information is given suggests that such researchers are independent. Just looking at the names of the studies, this can be seen as incorrect:

'Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology'
'Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology'

I am less aware of the reliability of the others, but using Hyman and Wiseman immediately rings alarm bells. Cheers.