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 Contribs