Talk:Controversy in parapsychology

message: I do believe that there is a place on wikipedia for an article that discusses the issue of the types of criticisms directed towards parapsychology, the intensely personal nature of that criticism and it's relation to certain belief systems such as Skepticism, Atheism etc.  As an anthropologist, I am often disturbed by the exchanges I see in the literature and in skeptical publications which I read.  It is clear that for some skeptics, no amount of scientific testing or experimentation will ever be enough and what research is done is eagerly greeted as an opportunity to impune the motives of the parapsychologist doing it, their scientific training, their methods etc ad infinitum.  I have seen my fair share of savage attacks on academics by colleagues but with topics that fall under parapsychology, the overwhelming majority of criticism comes not from peers or colleagues but from a group of scholars whose criticism seems to be motivated by more than just scientific interest.  There are sketpics and then there are activist skeptics who treat any research in these areas as a personal affront.  I personally see it as no different than a biblical archeologist attacking any findings that might suggest there was never a global deluge as described in the Noah story.  The difference being that to certain skeptics, anything that clashes with their belief in a non-theistic world or rational and explainable world is intolerable.
So, I say good topic, but bad format.  The whole tit for tat style is tedious and incomprehensible to the average reader.  I would encourage the original editor to rethink his/her approach to this and look for good sources that evaluate the tone of skeptical criticism towards such topics and consider whether their tone is any different than the one they use to attck the validity of religious topics. Of course, he/she might also want to look at source material that seeks to determine if there IS any discernable difference between Parapsychology and religion.  Some argue there isn't much of a difference.  Look at Carl Sagan's Demon haunted World and Mike Dash's Boderlands.  There's good material there. Lisapollison 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good topic, bad format

message: Ultimately, can this page be salvaged? In order to make it properly Wikipedic, it would require a total rewrite; The format and even the name would need changing. Better to scrap it and start fresh from the ground up, or just let the main Parapsychology page sum up the matter of common criticsms, etc. Noclevername 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can be salvaged.  Like I said in my comment at AFD, there's lots of good, useable content here in the form of sources and quotations, and it's clear that a lot of work went into this and it'd be a shame to scrap it all.  However, it does need to be totally re-written.  Martinphi seems accepting of a move to userspace and a re-write; see this comment on my talk page], but doesn't think he (she?) can or should do the re-write, but is willing to host it in his userspace.  I think merging it all into Parapsychology would be a mistake - summary style exists for a reason.  Should we go ahead and move it now, withdrawing the AFD in the process, or should we wait for the AFD to run its course? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; The contents of this page could be moved to Martinphi's Userspace, and in its place, a comprehensive rewrite of the article, with a link to Martinphi on the Parapsychology Category page. That way, all the work that went into this particular page won't be lost, the info here will still be available, and this page gets a fresh start. Sounds like a plan! Noclevername 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Question Is...

message: For anyone who wants to tell me tha moving a page is not a minor edit- I must have checked the box by accident. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stragely enough, I've found that the software automatically marks all moves with the m, just like minor edits. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor move

message: I've restored this article because the newly rewritten parapsychology article only addresses some of the weaker controversies and criticisms. Ideally, the most important criticisms will be merged with the new parapsychology article and this article can become just a redirect again. I'll be working on making that happen. Oh, and I threw up an NPOV tag because I'm not certain that the wording of this entire article is fair; however, some of the contents are important toward a fuller understanding of parapsychology. Antelan talk 06:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration - ideally, temporary 

message: I want to get a good idea of who supports this merger and who doesn't. Without adding any arguments for or against the merger just tell me whether you support or oppose the merger. This isn't a vote of any kind to determine the outcome, simply a straw poll to see who supports it right now and who doesn't. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. On the condition that the Controversy article is severly streamlined without removing non-duplicate points (in other words, get rid of the bulky quotes, duplicated points, one-person opinions, etc.).--Nealparr (talk to me) 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. I am wary of "streamlining". I would want to get a consensus on a version of this article and then discuss whether or not that version should be merged.  Antelan talk 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Any version of this article as it is will have no relation to how it might look if it were to be merged. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Mike, don't believe it.  I never OWNed the article- in fact, I specifically sandboxed it so people could edit it.  I originally refrained from editing a new version because I didn't want to own it- see talk page above.  Only when Antelan said he wanted to merge it, and when it was obvious that people were doing little with it, did I edit it.  What I actually said was, that people were on my back about deleting criticisms due to my pro-parapsychology POV.  But these were criticisms which I put up in the first place.  There is no issue with OWNing. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a straw poll, Don't let it turn into a debate. Mike33 & Martinphi. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh right, apologies, didn't see the heading. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only when the parapsychology article actually included the entirety of this article did I support the merger. After the new parapsychology article was introduced, the merger was entirely undone. Martinphi, you got a good start on this article. Antelan talk 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Antelan. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning merger... 

message: Please see [] for more info. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the merger of this article, See the rough draft I drew up.