Talk:Psychic/Archive 4

message: "Psychic senses" section could use some work, maybe with links, and probably changing the last paragraph to reflect "five normal senses", thus eliminating repetition. "Seventh sense" being claricognizance needs to be clarified, as no "sixth" is named. "Fiction" section could be longer. A separate "References" section listing the references alphabetically would be useful as well. John Carter 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comments 

message: :Note:copied from a user page discussion
I don't recall this as being part of the ArbCom ruling.  It looks like it came from , but I don't believe the arbitrator actually said to use that specific wording; and the statement from the arbitrator: "I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter," leaves me with the understanding that the original wording was fine and didn't need to be changed at all...much less being "literally per the ArbCom".  Looks like the editor who added it is willing to edit war over it, so I thought I'd get another opinion on it...and you seem like the perfect choice..;) – Dreadstar † 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <minor edit> I would rather see a consensus discussion take place on the Talk:Psychic page than to just revert the disputed edit again - I think it might just lead to edit warring, which is one of the basic things ArbCom was really addressing with its rulings.  If we are interpreting the edit correctly as a provocative or WP:POINT edit, then it's unfortunate that Uninvited Co's hope seems to have been missed: "I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Care to discuss the article on its talk page, in full view of other editors? Antelan talk 22:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, per request by User:Antelan.  – Dreadstar † 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I didn't want to move it myself in case there would be an objection. Antelan talk 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Equally, you "edit-warred", to use your term, to take my edit out. Pot, kettle, black. I don't think a discussion introduced in the way you've introduced it is going to go anywhere productive, frankly. Antelan talk 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbcom

message: Antelan, please explain why you are making non-consensus edits and edit warring to keep them in. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Equally, you "edit-warred", to use your term, to take my edit out. Pot, kettle, black. I don't think a discussion introduced in the way you've introduced it is going to go anywhere productive, frankly. Antelan talk 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Point one

message: If we're going to refer to people like Sylvia Browne or John Edward as "Psychics" then this article must reflect the definition of "Psychic" as someone who "claims" to have paranormal abilities but not someone who necessarily has them. The Arbitration committee voted unanimously for the following statement:
""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist."
This means that if a psychic "may not" have psychic abilities an the use of the term does not imply that such abilities actually exist, we need to clarify that in this article. That means that this article needs to define "Psychic" as someone who "claims to have" psychic abilities and not someone who necessarily has them. The criticism section doesn't negate the fact that if this article defines "psychic" as someone with psychic abilities, then Wikipedia would be affirming that people like Sylvia Browne or John Edward actually have psychic powers. This would all be acceptable per WP:WTA. 
Also, Concerning the term "apparently". This term is very ambiguous. If someone "apparently" has psychic powers, then who is it apparent to? It isn't apparent to me. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources such as the New York Times might insult its readers by explaining what they mean when they use the term psychic - for example, describing Jeane Dixon as a "self-described psychic" - but are we going to stoop to the level of the New York Times? Antelan talk 01:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitration committee made the decision to prevent us from calling self described psychics...Self described psychics. If we're stuck with this limitation then we need to clarify what the term "psychic" means in this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of real psychic abilities is very controversial, and skeptics say that the apparent instances of psychic phenomena, and the studies conducted by parapsychologists are better explained by self-delusion, fraud, or error.
We have included a Criticism section.
I'm sorry some people don't like the fact that the ArbCom decided that framing an article and including skepticism is enough to tell the reader that the powers may not exist.  However, we are at the point now where people will either have to abide by the ArbCom or choose to attempt to subvert it.  –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=149442964&oldid=149442424 Antelan talk 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you put that link? If you are saying that Bauder is not a god, I'm not saying he is.  Rather, he put the intent of the ArbCom better than I've been able to. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, You keep quoting people who say that "Psychic" doesn't necessarily mean someone with psychic powers, yet here you say that " the proper way to define "psychic" is as someone who HAS powers". So which is it? Wikidudeman (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Building consensus requires us to be able to work towards a unified vision for the article. I raised the concern in the RfC that the meaning encapsulated in the term "psychic" is not globally agreed upon; different people are operating under different definitions. You have asserted multiple, conflicting meanings of "psychic", and have been invoking the ArbCom in lieu of clarifying your position. We can cut through all of this if you will be straightforward about a self-consistent definition that you are comfortable with. It doesn't have to be a definition that I agree with; we just need some clue as to where you stand so we can find some common ground here. Antelan talk 04:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, What you're saying and what the Arbcom has said are two totally different things. The arbitration committee has said that "A psychic may not have psychic abilities" and this needs to be made clear in the first or second sentence of this article. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a tip: Wikipedia isn't Wiktionary. Psychic is a pretty common term and doesn't require an indepth technical definition and can skirit a definition altogether. For example, instead of "Psychic is...", you can use "The term psychic relates to the belief in supernatural forces, events, or powers." --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this one word, psychic, is going to adequately frame an entire article to the exclusion of any qualifiers indicating which of the several definitions of psychic we are using, it had better be crystal clear to us and to our readers what we mean when we use this word. I'm absolutely blown away that people are arguing in favor of vagueness instead of clarity - and to what end? Antelan talk 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compliance with the parameters of Wikipedia. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and it's the entire article here that does the framing. Example "parapsychological phenomena" isn't framed by the limited definition of parapsychology, it's framed by the whole controversy. Just a tip. I'm not arguing for any particular wording. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very important point: it's the entire article which does the framing, and also the entire article which gives the full feel for the definition of psychic. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply.  We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc.  The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article.  One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers.  Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud.  Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic.  It is largely  up to the reader to decide which is appropriate.
So to state it the way I did "A psychic is someone who has psychic powers, but those powers may not really exist," is not quite accurate.  Rather, the word psychic conveys many meanings.  The two most important to skeptics and believers, however, are the two I stated.  Both of those meanings are contained in the word psychic, and both are reflected in the current Psychic lead, which is well-framed per the ArbCom. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi classicalloy. Try #6 from dictionary.com . It is listed as a noun. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Psychic 

message: I'm attempting to make a case for the fact that the term "psychic", as it is being used commonly, and under the heading of the picture/info of Edgar Cayce (RHS), is inaccurate. There is no definition for the term as being a noun - the closest being, "medium". I believe it to be untrue for Wikipedia to use such a sensitive and mysterious concept as those things that are 'psyhic', in an erroneous way. I've tried to include the dictionary.com (source) definition of the word in editing the page, only to have it removed. However, any placement would be sufficient - as long as it is there. No rule applies to everything... including this one.
User:Classicalloy  06:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi classicalloy. Try #6 from dictionary.com . It is listed as a noun. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New definition case

message: PEOPLE PLEASE STOP BIVCKERING ITS NOT SOLVING ANYTHING!!!!! Smith Jones 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bicker-to engage in petulant or peevish argument. You're saying that my argument is petulant or peevish? Wikidudeman (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NO!!!! SOMEONE MOVED MY 'STOP BICKERING' SECTION DOWN FOR SOME REEASON. Smith Jones 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't intended to annoy you, just formatting. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ;i'm not made you just upset because it was not made until befofe wikidudemen and entered the debate. i was talking about the bickering that came b efore that but as usual everyone assmes the worst. Smith Jones 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why did you think it was aimed at you?  I thought it was aimed at the argument. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm part of the argument and am making arguments. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kay.  Whatever –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop bickering 

message: Comments on Neal's version, followed by general observations on everything.
 
:1. Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. --- The Greek root word derivation and its partial reference to the human mind are not primary essential details. The article should get right to what the word means.
 
:2. In popular usage the term describes paranormal forces, influences, or abilities, and people sensitive to or able to use these paranormal forces — psychics.  --- As WDM, Antelan, and others point out, if we're going to define "Psychic" as someone who definitely has psychic powers then we can't call the people currently listed as psychics "psychics", since their purported powers aren't proven to exist. A qualifier is sorely needed.
:3 The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics". --- Positioned as it does, this seems to be addressing some perceived need to draw a distinction between "real" psychic powers and "false" psychic powers. It makes an assumption (people "without paranormal abilities") that there are genuine abilities to compare with false ones.
 
:4 Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. --- I think there could be a more neutral and less "promotional" way of describing the results suggested by one poll.
:5 A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population had a belief in extra-sensory perception. ---- Might be justified if the lead took a pop culture slant. But as it is, it feels like a cherry-picked bit of data lifted out of a greater context.
:6. Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs. --- This fails to connect with your proposed lead, which defines psychic as extraordinary powers, rather than a "belief". Also there are major WEIGHT issues. One of the big problems with Martin's version is that it defines the term psychic as extraordinary powers and then later mentions that there are some doubters and controversy. In other words, it states a fact, and then says that the fact is controversial. Maybe that is the way proponents frame the issue among themselves, but it is not appropriate on WP. This fundamentally errant construct definitely needs to be corrected rather than propagated using different words.
:7. The existence of real psychic abilities is controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. -- Reference to "real" psychic abilities assumes there are "genuine" psychic abilities. Also I wonder if failure to gain any, rather than wide acceptance, isn't more the case.
 
:8. The sidebar of this article ("Paranormal Terminology") has some major problems, too. The credulous "definition" of Psychic notwithstanding, I take exception to: Signature: The manifestations of knowledge, abilities or phenomena derived from the brain, but outside of its normal scope. Signature? As in a "How To Recognize It" guide for spotting psychic ability? Not appropriate.
:9. Use of the word "apparently" -- one of those words in English with a widespread popular conversational usage different from it's actual definition. A majority of people use "apparently" to mean roughly, "confirmed by seeing" e.g. "Bill and Donna apparently broke up" or "We're apparently out of gas". It strikes me as the most misleading of any qualifier to use in such a controversial Wikipedia article as "Psychic", as it could be so easily taken to mean something different than what's intended. I suppose one could Wikilawyer that how people mis-use a word is not our problem, but I believe that no editor who subscribes to NPOV would want to deliberately exploit a possible confusion in any form, so I suggest "said to be" and such variants as preferred alternatives to "apparent".
 
:10. Arbitrators have said ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist, and a psychic may not have psychic abilities. If this is true, it must be sourceable, and if it's sourceable, we can avoid all confusion by stating this in the lead -- i.e. the very specific conditions of the definition that *Wikipedia* is using for the word "psychic". I can see no good reason to keep readers of the article in the dark about this.
: 11. In the External Links: *Abella Arthur — Videos about psychic & paranormal activity from the perspective of a professional psychic Youtube psychics? I don't think this is an approprate WP:EL.
:--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sectionizing it below. I restored it above, only as a reference to what I originally posted, as the attributions below can get confusing. - LuckyLouie 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In part, the word is used to refer to the human mind or psyche. Examples, "psychic turmoil", "psychic debt" (guilt trip). It's not all paranormal. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dumped the whole derived part to the bottom. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A qualifier is one option. Another option is to spell it out. That's what the very next line does. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have spelled this out.  Note that the current version is just fine per the ArbCom in the opinion of one Arbitrator. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, after re-reading it, a soft qualifier is actually in this line. "In popular usage". The difference (and why it's compatible with any arbitration suggestion, is that we're referring only to the usage of the term rather than making statements about the existence of paranormal phenomena. This line, if applied to Sylvia Browne, would read "Sylvia Browne is popularly described as one with psychic powers". Rather than "Sylvia Browne has psychic powers." --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See #Your qualifier (please read)
===Asssumption of validity===
The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics". --- Positioned as it does, this seems to be addressing some perceived need to draw a distinction between "real" psychic powers and "false" psychic powers. It makes an assumption (people "without paranormal abilities") that there are genuine abilities to compare with false ones.
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a distinction. There's real, and there's illusion, and the real may not exist. This is all covered in the intro. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also framed, per ArbCom. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Suggestions? --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it to "common", less promotional. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This moves into the pop culture weight. Not every idea can be wrapped up in one sentence and it takes several sentences to move into it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what leads are.  And the article should be more pop-culture. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wanted to mention that the Gallup poll isn't cherry picked. It's the more reliable out of all of them and is one they do every couple of years to gauge changes. The one before that was in 2000, or 2001 I think. The source is Skeptical Inquirer. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, not every idea can be wrapped up in one sentence. You have to set the technical definition before you can illustrate the approach the article will be taking. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a version.  However, the Arbitrators see the article/lead as a whole, not as one particular sentence.  We can have non-NPOV sentences in an NPOV lead. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it does assume "a controversial possibility". On the second part, are you suggesting it should read "evidence for paranormal has failed to gain wide acceptance"? Because I'm fine with that. It's not true that it hasn't gained "any". The parapsychology article elaborates on that. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy is indeed assumed. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated it here . Removed the "real" part and framed it as a scientific discussion, because that's what the following lines were about. Pop culture's ideas of its "realness" are largely subjective. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I updated that recently. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "sidebar" is actually a terminology box, not a taxonomy box. It exists purely to frame and define the subject matter in a particular context. As for what is and isn't appropriate, I personally consider it appropriate for a terminology box to clearly define the terminology. The current box doesn't include a definition, which is silly. It tells you where the word comes from but not what it means. - perfectblue 13:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem with the sidebar is that it's freakishly huge, and redundant. All the information in it is already in the article so it's hard to justify taking up so much page real estate saying the same thing all over again. I'd actually like to see it dropped in favor of a simple picture. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My intro doesn't use the word. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the new intro doesn't use it.  And, the whole point of psychic phenomena is that they are apparent- else no one would believe in them. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what the new lead does.  The new one says "Psychic also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions, but do not have paranormal abilities." –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can provide sources for my lead and will bother with the time doing it if this is the only objection. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would dump most external links that aren't authoritative. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Woah, really long. How should I address it? Divide it into sections? --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Section away. Restored my OP at the top for reference. Sorry for the giant post, but I am busy and don't have time for serial discussion/negotiation. Take this me "registering my concerns" rather than a challenge to a debate ;-) I'll get back to this when I can. Thanks, Neal. - LuckyLouie 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, thank you for the feedback. I too don't want to get into all the discussions : ) I just thought the intro proposal might address some of the concerns that editors have raised. Good to have you commenting. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Lead

message: Psychic (sī'kĭk) is derived from the Greek word psychikos (of the soul/mental) and was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion. As an adjective psychic refers in part to the human mind or psyche. --- The Greek root word derivation and its partial reference to the human mind are not primary essential details. The article should get right to what the word means.
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In part, the word is used to refer to the human mind or psyche. Examples, "psychic turmoil", "psychic debt" (guilt trip). It's not all paranormal. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dumped the whole derived part to the bottom. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of Psychic

message: The term also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities, also commonly referred to as "psychics". --- Positioned as it does, this seems to be addressing some perceived need to draw a distinction between "real" psychic powers and "false" psychic powers. It makes an assumption (people "without paranormal abilities") that there are genuine abilities to compare with false ones.
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a distinction. There's real, and there's illusion, and the real may not exist. This is all covered in the intro. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also framed, per ArbCom. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Asssumption of validity

message: Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread and persistent. --- I think there could be a more neutral and less "promotional" way of describing the results suggested by one poll.
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions? --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it to "common", less promotional. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Belief poll

message: A survey conducted by the Gallup Organization in 2005 suggested that 41% of the general United States population had a belief in extra-sensory perception.  ----  Might be justified if the lead took a pop culture slant. But as it is, it feels like a cherry-picked bit of data lifted out of a greater context.
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This moves into the pop culture weight. Not every idea can be wrapped up in one sentence and it takes several sentences to move into it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what leads are.  And the article should be more pop-culture. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wanted to mention that the Gallup poll isn't cherry picked. It's the more reliable out of all of them and is one they do every couple of years to gauge changes. The one before that was in 2000, or 2001 I think. The source is Skeptical Inquirer. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallup survey

message: Psychologists skeptical of psychic phenomena offer magical thinking as an explanation for the beliefs. --- This fails to connect with your proposed lead, which defines psychic as extraordinary powers, rather than a "belief". Also there are major WEIGHT issues. One of the big problems with Martin's version is that it defines the term psychic as extraordinary powers and then later mentions that there are some doubters and controversy. In other words, it states a fact, and then says that the fact is controversial. Maybe that is the way proponents frame the issue among themselves, but it is not appropriate on WP. This fundamentally errant construct definitely needs to be corrected rather than propagated using different words.
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, not every idea can be wrapped up in one sentence. You have to set the technical definition before you can illustrate the approach the article will be taking. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a version.  However, the Arbitrators see the article/lead as a whole, not as one particular sentence.  We can have non-NPOV sentences in an NPOV lead. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychologist framing

message: The existence of real psychic abilities is controversial. Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. --  Reference to "real" psychic abilities assumes there are "genuine" psychic abilities. Also I wonder if failure to gain any, rather than wide acceptance, isn't more the case.
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does assume "a controversial possibility". On the second part, are you suggesting it should read "evidence for paranormal has failed to gain wide acceptance"? Because I'm fine with that. It's not true that it hasn't gained "any". The parapsychology article elaborates on that. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy is indeed assumed. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated it here . Removed the "real" part and framed it as a scientific discussion, because that's what the following lines were about. Pop culture's ideas of its "realness" are largely subjective. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Asssumpition of validity II

message: The sidebar of this article ("Paranormal Terminology") has some major problems, too. The credulous "definition" of Psychic notwithstanding, I take exception to: Signature: The manifestations of knowledge, abilities or phenomena derived from the brain, but outside of its normal scope. Signature? As in a "How To Recognize It" guide for spotting psychic ability? Not appropriate.
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated that recently. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "sidebar" is actually a terminology box, not a taxonomy box. It exists purely to frame and define the subject matter in a particular context. As for what is and isn't appropriate, I personally consider it appropriate for a terminology box to clearly define the terminology. The current box doesn't include a definition, which is silly. It tells you where the word comes from but not what it means. - perfectblue 13:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem with the sidebar is that it's freakishly huge, and redundant. All the information in it is already in the article so it's hard to justify taking up so much page real estate saying the same thing all over again. I'd actually like to see it dropped in favor of a simple picture. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Asssumption of validity sidebar

message: Use of the word "apparently" -- one of those words in English with a widespread popular conversational usage different from it's actual definition. A majority of people use "apparently" to mean roughly, "confirmed by seeing" e.g. "Bill and Donna apparently broke up" or "We're apparently out of gas". It strikes me as the most misleading of any qualifier to use in such a controversial Wikipedia article as "Psychic", as it could be so easily taken to mean something different than what's intended. I suppose one could Wikilawyer that how people mis-use a word is not our problem, but I believe that no editor who subscribes to NPOV would want to deliberately exploit a possible confusion in any form, so I suggest "said to be" and such variants as preferred alternatives to "apparent".
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My intro doesn't use the word. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the new intro doesn't use it.  And, the whole point of psychic phenomena is that they are apparent- else no one would believe in them. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of 'apparently'

message: Arbitrators have said ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist, and a psychic may not have psychic abilities. If this is true, it must be sourceable, and if it's sourceable, we can avoid all confusion by stating this in the lead -- i.e. the very specific conditions of the definition that *Wikipedia* is using for the word "psychic". I can see no good reason to keep readers of the article in the dark about this.
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the new lead does.  The new one says "Psychic also refers to stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions, but do not have paranormal abilities." –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can provide sources for my lead and will bother with the time doing it if this is the only objection. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural artifact statement

message: In the External Links: *Abella Arthur — Videos about psychic & paranormal activity from the perspective of a professional psychic   Youtube psychics? I don't think this is an approprate WP:EL.
--- LuckyLouie 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would dump most external links that aren't authoritative. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woah, really long. How should I address it? Divide it into sections? --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: ::Section away. Restored my OP at the top for reference. Sorry for the giant post, but I am busy and don't have time for serial discussion/negotiation. Take this me "registering my concerns" rather than a challenge to a debate ;-) I'll get back to this when I can. Thanks, Neal. - LuckyLouie 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, thank you for the feedback. I too don't want to get into all the discussions : ) I just thought the intro proposal might address some of the concerns that editors have raised. Good to have you commenting. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: the skettic dictionary mentioned that a man named edward crookes was the first to describe someone as apsychic mabe this information could be included somewhere int h article? Smith Jones 00:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. See Psychic#Origins. Regards. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! – Dreadstar † 01:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so. Nice find Smith. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skepticism 

message: Why is there a block against articles about Matthew Manning? I noticed  "Carlos Suarez" deleted one rather peremptorily. When I tried to enter a fuller, more complete article on Manning, giving plenty of references and citations, it was deleted as soon as I tried to save it. Is there some kind of vendetta going on? Pahuson 05:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean this:
Matthew Manning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Matthew Manning (born 1955) is a best selling author and healer, and is well known for his purported psychic abilities. As a child he and his family were allegedly subjected to a range of poltergeist disturbances in their Cambridge home and later at Oakham School. Whilst writing a school essay Matthew discovered he had the ability to do Automatic Writing and found that in doing so it would weaken or completely stop the poltergiest activity. He also discovered he could do Automatic Drawing, and claimed to draw in the styles of many famous artists including Pablo Picasso. The events of his childhood and later investigations by Dr. George Owen of the Cambridge Psychical Research Society were published in a book entitled The Link, which eventually sold more than a million copies. Matthew Manning now resides in Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk and focuses his attention on psychic healing.
[edit] External links
* Matthew Manning - Official site
* Matthew Manning - Psychic Healer
* Examples of Automatic Drawings by Matthew
I'm not sure why it was deleted.  However I suspect that it was because there are not enough sources besides his own site that mention him.  Dig up a bunch of sources where he is mentioned in books, or magazines (which he doesn't publish himself), and you should be OK. It's all about sourcing. Read the Wikipedia guidelines. 
If you have another one with that kind of sources, I'd be glad to insert it for you, and then we'll see what happens (:  The admin who deleted it said "Biographical article that does not assert significance" so I assume I'm right- see this –––Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason listed for it's deletion was WP:CSD#A7 (failure to assert importance/significance). The problem is that people create articles about themselves on Wikipedia all the time (even when they aren't notable) and someone not familiar with the subject probably thought it was a "vanity" article or spam. It's not really a vendetta, it's lack of knowledge about who these people are. Vanity articles and non-notable subjects are critieria for speedy deletion, which doesn't require voting or presentation of sources to show notability. That's unfortunate, I think. In any case, here's what you can do about it . --Nealparr (talk to me) 11:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censored articles? 

message: In this passage:
::The existence of paranormal psychic abilities is highly controversial.  Parapsychology explores this possibility, but no evidence for paranormal phenomena has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community.
the reason for calling them "paranormal psychic abilities" is that it distinguishes them from stage magicians, mentalists, and charlatans who perform psychic-like illusions without paranormal abilities. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for "paranormal"

message: This article has progressed little in the past several months and most of the progress has been due to removing controversial relevant information that could have stayed if it was presented in a better way. This article is very short for such a subject and needs to be drastically improved. This article has Featured Article potential however the ONLY way to accomplish this is for all editors to work together to improve it. The most efficient way to treat this article is the way that Parapsychology was treated. If everyone agrees to work with me on improving this article then I can have it to F.A. status within a month. If no one wants to participate on a comprehensive group rewrite then I'm going to move onto other articles. Please add some input on this. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a rewrite on this article and some fleshing out of certain sections. I think it needs an entirely different approach than what is currently there, however (I'll elaborate later). I'm also concerned by the history of the article. Everytime a concerted effort is put into improving the article (consensus), a rogue editor comes in and makes massive changes soon after. It suffers from personal opinions of how the article should read rather than a collective opinion. So in rewriting the article, there should first be an agreement on the approach the article should take, and then there should be a group effort to support and maintain that approach. --Nealparr (talk to me) 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'd prefer a different method than used in Parapsychology.  That was too cumbersome, and too many people felt ignored.  I propose working on one section at a time on the talk page, or in a sandbox + the sandbox's talk page.  Then inserting one section at a time with consensus. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles can't be worked on "one section at a time" as articles must flow as one piece of work. Parapsychology is an FA. This article will never reach that status nor will any other paranormal related article with the conventional method of doing things. It simply won't work. I won't spend time doing it any other way because with articles such as this it would be futile. Now I've mentioned this before, During the rewrite process things get hectic and if I overlooked a proposal simply reposting it at the bottom would be more than enough. Or even leaving a note on my talk page to remind me to implement it. Though as I've said before, If you want to try it your way then I could wait a month or so and come back and still see this article below the level of GA, such as I did with the EVP article, but my sitting back and waiting for you to realize that the conventional methods of editing these sorts of articles don't work means that the article takes longer and longer to improve. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's time for a rewrite 

message: Let's forget the rewrite for this article. Let's just improve it. I'll start by offering suggestions. Please say "support" or "oppose" and briefly explain your reasoning. Here are some suggestions:
===Remove the "Famous psychics" area===
I have been looking for decent UK psychics and not really finding anything useful. I was impressed with www.americanassociationofpsychics.com as it is the only invitation only psychic directory on the internet that actually hand picks its members. I'll be honest with you I had some input to the site a few years ago when I was in the USA, however I still think it is the best psychic resource site I have seen. It may be a useful external link to consider. Please note I am back in the UK and have no involvement with this organization therefore this is purely my opinion.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbarrie (talk • contribs) 11:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Replace with the really notable psychics in history, like Nostradamus. I'll take care of this part. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer it just be removed. Integrated into the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly notable.  Then we erase not-truly-notable.  Otherwise the section will just re-appear. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. But I wouldn't want to see it degrade into a list. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. That's too specific. While most of the skepticism mentioned is sourced from organizations, the vast majority of actual skeptics belong to no such organizations. "Skepticism" is much better IMO. The fact that the sources come from organizations doesn't mean that the only skepticism is "organized" whatever that really means. I'm skeptical of psychics and I belong to no organization. Most people who are skeptical of psychics or psychic abilities belong to no organizations and use the same arguments that the JREF or CSICOP use. "Skepticism" is more general and more encompassing. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Six of one, half a dozen of another. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like this to be an article about psychics in pop culture and reduce the pro- con- arguments that show up in some of the other articles. As I've talked about before, most people are already familiar with and have made up their minds on whether psychics are real or not. Let's put that to the side and throw in some informative behind the story stuff. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article needs to elaborate on all of the relevancies of the term "psychic". I see "Skepticism" and "Psychical research" as quite different. Firstly, Not all skepticism includes actual research into the purported claims. Skepticism based on Occams Razor etc generally use no research. I see them as quite different. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd still like to see them integrated, even if under a different header. "Evaluating psychic phenomena" would work based on your distinctions. What I wouldn't like to see is the whole article suffer because of pro- and con- debates. Plus, I think the beliefs and skepticism statements should be integrated here where appropriate (unlike in the parapsychology article). An example of where it works is the sections I put together for Nostradamus and Delphi. They belong together in this article because the topic of this article isn't a science debate. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See how it is now and tell me what you think. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not liking the one word header. "Validity of psychic claims" would be better. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forget the rewrite. Just help me improve the article. 

message: I have been looking for decent UK psychics and not really finding anything useful. I was impressed with www.americanassociationofpsychics.com as it is the only invitation only psychic directory on the internet that actually hand picks its members. I'll be honest with you I had some input to the site a few years ago when I was in the USA, however I still think it is the best psychic resource site I have seen. It may be a useful external link to consider. Please note I am back in the UK and have no involvement with this organization therefore this is purely my opinion.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbarrie (talk • contribs) 11:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Replace with the really notable psychics in history, like Nostradamus. I'll take care of this part. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer it just be removed. Integrated into the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly notable.  Then we erase not-truly-notable.  Otherwise the section will just re-appear. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove the "Famous psychics" area

message: Way too big and doesn't add to the article. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove the infobox

message: This section needs expanding. It only mentions two examples while there are no doubt dozens. Someone needs to expand it. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But I wouldn't want to see it degrade into a list. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand Popular culture and Fiction

message: Because lots of people are skeptical of psychics and psychic phenomena. These are the organized guys. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. That's too specific. While most of the skepticism mentioned is sourced from organizations, the vast majority of actual skeptics belong to no such organizations. "Skepticism" is much better IMO. The fact that the sources come from organizations doesn't mean that the only skepticism is "organized" whatever that really means. I'm skeptical of psychics and I belong to no organization. Most people who are skeptical of psychics or psychic abilities belong to no organizations and use the same arguments that the JREF or CSICOP use. "Skepticism" is more general and more encompassing. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Six of one, half a dozen of another. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change "skepticism" to "organized skepticism

message: The reason for this is because they're not separate topics. Both "psychical research" and "skeptical research" are research into the possibility of psychic abilities. They contrast with the rest of the article which talks about psychics in pop culture, history, fiction, etc. As I mentioned before, that's the approach I feel that the article should take because that's where "psychics" are in the mainstream pop culture. All the lab stuff, science stuff, skepticism, debunking, etc. is research, not pop culture. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like this to be an article about psychics in pop culture and reduce the pro- con- arguments that show up in some of the other articles. As I've talked about before, most people are already familiar with and have made up their minds on whether psychics are real or not. Let's put that to the side and throw in some informative behind the story stuff. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article needs to elaborate on all of the relevancies of the term "psychic". I see "Skepticism" and "Psychical research" as quite different. Firstly, Not all skepticism includes actual research into the purported claims. Skepticism based on Occams Razor etc generally use no research. I see them as quite different. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd still like to see them integrated, even if under a different header. "Evaluating psychic phenomena" would work based on your distinctions. What I wouldn't like to see is the whole article suffer because of pro- and con- debates. Plus, I think the beliefs and skepticism statements should be integrated here where appropriate (unlike in the parapsychology article). An example of where it works is the sections I put together for Nostradamus and Delphi. They belong together in this article because the topic of this article isn't a science debate. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See how it is now and tell me what you think. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not liking the one word header. "Validity of psychic claims" would be better. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Place "psychical research" and "skepticism" into "Research"

message: Anybody get a tremendous amount of heartburn if I add an "External links" section with a "Critical resources" subsection and the following link?:
*A review of Bible verses prohibiting psychic mediums, divination, and fortune telling
Thanks for your input
--Sdiekmann 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're currently working on rewriting the article and I'm sure at some point soon we'll get to the EL section. That's a tricky section because potentially it could be filled with any number of spam links to psychic hotlines, etc. To match WP:EL, I would personally like to see two or three links only, directly about the topic, and only from authoritative sources. Either that or no links at all. I'm a bit wary of scripture pages because, of course, there's hundreds of religious perspectives and linking to one justifies linking to any number of them. I think I'd be more willing to include a link to scriptures if the page was an authoritative source expressing the consensus of the entire Christian community. I'm not even sure if there is such a thing. That link, for example, is Lutheran and represents only one version of the Bible out of several. See the dilema? --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find 3 or 4 good neutral links then we can do it that way. Otherwise we need probably 2 pro and 2 criticism links both in the same section. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying.  The article is on a Lutheran website, although it's essentially just a list of Bible verses, without much "commentary" except at the beginning, and there's no such thing as a "Lutheran" Bible.  Look those Bible verses up in any translation and they will read essentially the same.  There isn't a place where you can go that lists what the concensus is on any Christian "topic."  I would think the majority of the Christian community would agree with what the article says.  The Bible verses aren't taken out of context, and are from both the Old and New Testaments.  It's goofy not to have any "con" point of view.  That's what the "critical resources" section is for!  Since I'm a Christian, I'll add this too: It's never a bad idea to get God's opinion also!  At any rate I'll defer to your judgement after you've read my response and add what you want to add.  Thanks  --Sdiekmann 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can surely mention the bible's stance on psychics in the article itself. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How about that Sdiekmann? Incorporating it into the article with that link being a source for the biblical view? It'd make a great addition to the "Belief in psychic abilities" section. I'd be happy to write it and would rather avoid too many ELs (personally I'm in favor of no ELs). --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Although if it's about the Bible then it would probably fit best in the History section. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the beliefs are current, which places it in the beliefs section ; ) It's not really historical. It's about the view that Christians should not consult false prophets or engage in occult practices. That's a current view. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Then it would probably be best citing some person elaborating on those views opposed to citing directly from bible verses. Though I think that most people who call themselves "christians" don't oppose so called fortune tellers. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll try to find some statistics on the beliefs published by a reliable theological source, but certainly not all Christians are opposed since some psychics refer to themselves as Christian. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A lot do actually. Though then we get into the semantic argument of "what is a Christian?". Can one be a Christian if one claims to be a psychic or consults people who claim to be psychics? Must one obey all of the bible to be a Christian or just some of it or perhaps none of it? In my experience most people who refer to themselves as "Christians" really don't know much about the bible to begin with and the ones who refer to them selfs as psychics or consults purported psychics likely don't even know that the bible forbids such things. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course none of this really has much to do with the article, since we're just presenting information according to weight, but it is my opinion that it's all subjective interpretation. The Bible doesn't forbid such things, it just forbids "false prophets". It doesn't forbid communicating with spirits or psychic advice. Moses, Jesus, Daniel and a host of others were all believed to have psychic abilities and communicated with spirits. Mary talked to an angel before giving birth. But they were believed to get their information from God. False psychic information was considered to be anything that doesn't come from God. Since that's totally a matter of opinion on what info comes from God and what doesn't, you have a lot of Christians out there who consider these things to be "gifts" from God. The entire book of Revelations came from a psychic vision. It ends up being a matter of opinion on whether that was from God and Edgar Cayce's stuff wasn't. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it says: "Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God." - Leviticus 19:31. Seems like it's saying not to seek advice from mediums or spiritualists regardless of their powers or lack thereof. Isaiah 8:19-20 says even: "Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?" in regards to spiritualists, basically it's assuming they do actually work. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I learned a long time ago not to get into deep religious conversations on the web : ) But I will say that every one of those things they say not to do, the "good guys" did too. Jesus didn't just talk to the dead, he raised the dead. But this is exactly why that link is biased and why I said it's just one version of the Bible. That wording comes from the New International Version. The King James Version reads "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God." Exact same passage, totally different wordings. Nothing about "mediums" and "spiritists", which are modern terms. This begs the question, which came first? The belief themselves or the scriptures to match the belief? Clearly someone didn't like Spiritualism when they wrote the New International Version. : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the Hebrew words used for "those who have familiar spirits" is literally "necromancer" or "one who speaks to the dead" and the translation for the "wizard" is yidd@`oniy meaning a "soothsayer". So it's pretty much conveying the same meaning. --Wikidudeman (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is a common belief, so it belongs in the article. I'm just saying, off-topic, there's a lot that's interpretive there. Of course I have a tendency towards deconstruction, which means basically that I think everything is contexts within contexts within contexts, endlessly. I translate "conveying the same meaning" to "whatever meaning there was, it was lost long ago". --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add a "Critical resources" category

message: To explain this, "Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries."   Thus, peer review has nothing to do with it. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: To explain

message: There was a claim that I "deleted" stuff from the intro. I took out two sentences that awkwardly referenced parapsychology in the lead, true, but I did this because this is an article about psychics, not parapsychological investigations. The relevant points here are that psychics claim to do certain tasks and others dispute those claims.
Aside from this, I removed some particular attribution and reworked the sentence into an assertion of fact rather than an opinion.
Please explain what was wrong with this.
ScienceApologist (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You did delete things from the intro, you even admit this in your second sentence. The previous version was sourced and provided more detail.  It was in no way awkward and it provided useful sourced info about the credibility of psychics. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, a blanket reversion of deleted contents removes other things that I did. Treating my edit solely as a deletion is flatly a misinterpretation of the edit. Secondly, the credibility of parapsychology itself is questionable. So polluting the lead with questionable attempts at positing credibility is not only confusing: it doesn't even lend itself to a decent introduction. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My version of the intro

message: Hey SA. Whatever else is going on and I don't pretend to know I have only done some copy editing, this was a sizable deletion without discussion. I would think that the "whatever else" part should be discussed. That's what discussion is for ... the whatever else.But hey, I have no desire to edit war on this ... just a comment and a move towards a more consensual edit.(olive (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I explain myself above. Perhaps you could try taking some of your own medicine and using the talkpage before making edits if you really feel so strongly? Saying something like "heads-up, I didn't like that edit and here's why" might go a long way toward making me feel a bit more welcome as an editor. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the "sourced material" is still in the appropriate section. Is there any justification for having it in the lead also? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: I have removed a link from the intro that does not link to information the paragraph references. Encyclopedic references are poor references as well.(olive (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I despair of being able to view that page on my connection, however, the source is not necessary to the statement from the looks of the thing, so I have no problem with your taking it out. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good then, but the point is that the link links to the Brittanica Home page, not to a reference for any material in the article.(olive (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link deletion from intro paragraph 

message: This is for the following reasons:
#No source that does not advocate for the existence of psychic powers states that there is a controversy. Thus, this is essentially a pseudo-controversy (a one-sided controversy).
#We need to avoid particular attribution to one named skeptic.
#I tried to rephrase the sentence about to what skeptics attribute demonstrations of psychic powers as a direct attribution. I even used the word "attribute".
#The particular experiments that were listed are all very specific instances and since psychic powers are so broad, discussing them in the lead gives them undue weight with respect to the topic at large.
#The idea that parapsychology experiments suggest anything is suspect. Surely, those parapsychologists who believe that psychic phenomena exist believe that there are experiments which demonstrate this. However, we need to be careful to attribute this belief to those people.
ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some justification

message: Does the word psychic refer to the ability to perceive things hidden from the sense through ESP or just the alleged ability to perceive things through ESP? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This request was not showing up on the . So far as I can tell, it appears to have been filed correctly, but I removed the wikiformatting from the template call in case that was mucking up the bot for some reason. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I hope the article does make things clear as to how it's seen in skepticism and mainstream science.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Which defining sentence is better?