Talk:Psychic/Archive 3

message: i decided to wanting ato sepereate that external liinks between "Pro-psyhcic" and "anti-psychic" websites and i wanted to get consensus before i getyellwed at again for "Vandalism". who else things that this is a good idea, and whowants to help me make it happen? Smith Jones 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably fine, though I'm not sure it's necessary with this small number of links. I reverted it as I interpreted it as possible vandalism; I had no idea what you were trying to accomplish, and you did it incredibly messily. Can you please use the Show changes before submitting edits? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay i'll do that. the reason why i recommend is tbecause the last psychic article afore this one had a bunch fo links and most parapsycholoy articles have a bunch of external links and it helps to seperaate them because it turns tinto a jumbled sloppy mess after a while and can be painfult o read for long periods of time. if you think i should i;ll hold off for a while until we can get more links otn this webpage. Smith Jones 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BETTER IDEA 

message: The last discussion of this got sidetracked, so back on topic: does anyone else think the definition needs a qualifier of some sort (whatever we can agree is most neutral)?  Right now we have "the word means a person who can produce psi phenomena" which seems to define the term as something that exists as opposed to something unproven to exist.  I can't see that as NPOV or factually accurate based on the sources (and sorry, I don't consider the Parapsychological Association to be enough of an authority for WP to declare that it exists).  Opinions?  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said previously, many times: that is not accurate.  A "psychic" is not a "psychic" because he purports himself to be, but rather because he has powers.  The definition of "psychic" is someone with powers.  Period.  To say so is not POV.  From there, we can go on to viewpoints about whether the powers actually exist.  Purported psychics may or may not be psychics. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion.  I'd like to hear from other editors on this.  Opinions?  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Martinphi has already explaned this to us in this tasame talkpage. the consesuns was to define the word and then talk about whether onot its real or not in th enext paragraph. there is nothing wrong with this, and adding a retarded word like "priuporteD" to it will jist make this article stupid and badly-written. Smith Jones 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Smith (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: you're welcome Smith Jones 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Milo why dont you like te system we have now??? Smith Jones 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Purported" 

message: Noclevername, nice work on the recent tweaks.  You've done a very good job of keeping neutral wording, thanks.  --Minderbinder 12:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, thank you Milo, I'm glad you liked our work. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MAYBE iyou should bring all of the a"unsported" claims here" so that we can work together to give them support like [www.wikipedia.com] <--fro examle citation or other things~!!!') Smith Jones 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? As clearly as I can understand what you're saying, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reasons why). Wikipedia's supposed to be a source of reliable (or at least confirmable) information, not speculation. Noclevername 19:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edits 

message: http://www.parapsychology.org/ i just adde dth a ppage to this article. a it says that it is one of the official paraspychology internet influences and it hink that if this can be proved verifiabled then it can be a good research tool for compelteing this encyclopedic aritlce. Smith Jones 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please, PLEASE try to write more clearly. Seriously. -- Noclevername 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: do you have anything constructive tos ay ahout my site? Smith Jones 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith, if you are dyslexic or something, and can't type more clearly, would you please tell us?  Otherwise, would you please be more careful? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PARAYSYCHOLOGY.ORG 

message: If you would like to put this article in the pseudoscience category, please give a WP:V source for doing so.  Let this post stand in for a citation request on the pseudoscience Cat in the article.  If you find a good, NPOV source, I would also like to put it in the science Cat.  This is because it is connected to parapsychology, which is a science.  I can source that to Hyman, Randi, Alcock, and the AAAS. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found af ew source here that talk about psychics and psuedoscience. 
-----here is a book about it
-----here is info by a methatmatican
-----some debate here on a sciecne discussionb oard (not sure it if ill be will accepted)
-----a books that you care to buy about skepticalism and psuedoscinece and even psychics too 
oh, and not dyslexic i just typ3e in a hurry. i'll tr y to slow down but you could make an effort to understand me better. Smith Jones 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the sources Smith (:  Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am concerned, it can stay in the pseudoscience Cat, (with proper sourcing) but only if it is also in the science Cat.  There are plenty of sources for relating it to science. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say put Parapsychology under science, but leave Psychic where it is ("psychic" isn't the name of a science or a pseudoscience, just a potential subject of study). It's sort of like putting "automobile" under Physics just because a car engine uses the laws of thermodynamics.   Noclevername 06:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right- but the article is now under Cat pseudoscience.  I'd say take it out of both science and pseudoscience.  Is that what you mean? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then we are in agreement. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience

message: Well, I agree that everyone seems to have their own preferred version, but I don't think that ignoring the Random House and Dictionary of Psychology definitions is at all the popular consensus. Λυδαcιτγ 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most dictionaries met WP:RS and WP:V and are more than suitable for use in an encyclopedia.  Other redefinitions or mangling of dictionary terms are just a subtle version of synthesis per WP:OR and should be avoided.  Shot info 01:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really want Wikipedia to promote bunk? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and doesn't have the space considerations of one. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Do you really want Wikipedia to promote bunk?"  No, which is why I keep reminding all parties that we are writing an encyclopedia and using all those little "WP:xx" links.  WP is not a dictionary, but as you keep reminding people "Never said".  Please reread.  Shot info 02:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No one but Audacity likes this version, I think anyway" 

message: How about this:
Psychic is a term relating to or denoting mental abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws since they seem to transcend the confines of the known physical senses and any deduction from previous experience. People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics".
I also think there may be some salvagable material in the current version, such as:  
The word psychic is derived from the Greek psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind). The Greeks and the Irrational by E.R. Dodds, University of California Press, 1951 It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher.Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology edited by J. Gordon Melton Gale Research, .  The term is often used interchangeably with medium.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Psychic%20
Thoughts?  Dreadlocke  ☥  04:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite try

message: 'There has also been a free manual posted at http://www.psychicscience.info claiming[...]' The website is currently down. I propose removing the sentence if the website is persistently unavailable.Jimmy pickles 10:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's been slain!  --Haemo 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Manual 

message: ::::!11garden there is a lot o fo shit that goes on that with his debate just read through previous comments and the ian rchive. and then you can find issues and decisions that may yopu not comppletely like and respect and you can argue ginst those or change them if ou think that they should not be reflecting the adque thje belief systems of psychics in a fair and neutral way?! Smith Jones 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, ok.  Shot info 09:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1garden