Talk:Remote viewing/Archive 2

message: Back in February, this article was taken off NPOV by a user (who apparently is a believer in RV) claiming that it had been in NPOV too long without a plan to change it.  Since the article is still unacceptable, I'm putting it back in NPOV and working on fixing it.  As you can see, I've archived the old discussion, as it was long and out-of-date, and we need a fresh start.  
There are a couple of huge roadblocks to fixing this article.  First and foremost, it's extremely difficult to find an accurate history of RV a online.  Do a search for "remote viewing history" and all you get are sights like psitech.net and remoteviewers.com and others who have a clear stake in this and whose journalistic integrity are at best questionable.  So, revising the history section will take some doing.  ("Considerable work was done, for example, trying to locate Western hostages in Lebanon, and a long, multi-year series of projects were worked in support of US counter-narcotics efforts. Several of these were highly successful and according to intelligence and operational personnel in the joint task forces being supported, remote viewing data led to the capture of traffickers and recovery of contraband."  Yeah...I doubt that.  Nice use of anonymous sources though.)
Then of course there's the extreme length of this article.  I know you guys think every sentence in here is fundamental, but right now this article is just plain hard to read.  It rambles.  That's no surprise, I mean, it's written by committee and everyone wants to get their 2 cents in.  But it needs to be chopped down considerably, or else people interested in RV (but not already fanatics) won't take the time to read it...and nobody wants that.
Third problem:  a lack of organization.  For example, this page includes links both to the article on Courtney Brown and, for some reason, a page on courtneybrown.com (see link at the very bottom).  In fact the sheer number of links on this page is a little daunting, especially considering they tend to heavily favor a pro-RV viewpoint.  For God's sake, there's a link here that claims a man can predict lottery numbers correctly.  This is Wikipedia?  I'm off-topic again.  
Now then, my proposed improvements...
I don't hate the "Description" section.  Its wording is suspect in some spots and its grammar needs work, but it's not uninformative, so that's a plus.  I think a lot of that can stay.
Be prepared:  the history section is going to be cut drastically.  It's about 5 times longer than it needs to be, and most of the info in there is unverifiable anyway.  I'm going to work hard on it though, to ensure that the facts remain (or, perhaps, are introduced).  I don't know how I'm going to research this, but gosh darnit I shall.
Applications section:  why is this here?  History repeating itself?
Criticism section:  could be much better.  It needs a sense of cohesion, organization.  Hell, it needs content.  I don't expect much trouble out of that section.
Final reports:  I've read this section like five times and I have no idea what it says.
Links:  All the internal links can stay.  The external ones...a lot will have to go.  It might be easiest just to scrap them all.  If someone wants these links they can go to Google and get a list almost as long.
Naturally I invite all those of you who are dedicated to NPOV to join in on this article -- it needs your help.  I know I'll face a lot of opposition on this from staunch believers in RV.  To them I say in advance:  you do your cause no service by writing articles like this.  As it stands, only a RV enthusiast would believe everything written in this article.  Why preach to the converted?  In short:  don't make this any harder than it already is.  Please.  I beg of you.  I promise, I'm going to write a totally NPOV article.  Yes, I'm skeptical of RV, but I'm not going to let that color my wording.  I'm going to be totally fair.  Just give me a chance. --Malvolio80 01:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try that again 

message: I've written the new History section.  As you can see, it's shorter by a lot, and hopefully more accurate (some of the info I found didn't jibe with the old Wikipedia version).  
During the course of rewriting this section I discovered another page, Stargate Project, which goes into much more detail -- just another reason for us to keep it short on this page.  Unfortunately, the Stargate Project page has some serious issues of its own.  For one thing, the name is all wrong -- it's "Star Gate," not "Stargate," and "Project Star Gate" is how it's usually called.  In other words, it's impossible to find this page unless you look up PSI TECH and click on the link there, which is in fact how I found it.  And, of course, it's yet another NPOV page.  (On Ray Hyman's negative report:  "Based upon Ray’s finding which fitted the political environment of the period, the CIA followed the recommendation to terminate the project."  Uh-huh.)  Ideally, the bulk of the stuff from Stargate Project can be used to make a Project Star Gate page, which Remote Viewing could link to, thus offsetting some of the history burden.
So how do you like what I've done so far?  Feedback appreciated.  --Malvolio80 10:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend deleting EVERYTHING that is not SOURCED in this article about a technique that if it were actually useful would be worth trillions of dollars and employed by every major government and corporation. WAS 4.250 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: So, I did everything I set out to do with this article.  Did I go to far?  Did I not go far enough?  Feedback appreciated.
My most important goal was to make this article concise and readable, as before I found it boring and long.  I think I've met that goal, so I'm happy.  I also cleaned up a lot of grammar, and cut out a lot of questionable claims.  Personally I'm very pleased.  --Malvolio80 19:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, a top notch job! Nice work! I'd give you a Barnstar if I did such things. :) --NightMonkey 22:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of NPOV again 

message: At last, someone has decided to make serious edits.  Unfortunately they're a tad partisan.
Lest I seem tyrranical for reverting these edits, here's my reasoning.  "Remote Viewing skeptics claim it has only a minority acceptance among scientists" -- the added part being the "Remote Viewing Skeptics claim" portion.  We say earlier in the article that mainstream scientists consider it a "pseudoscience" -- I think it's verifiably factual that only a minority of scientists believe RV is real.  Next up:  "Positive results have been repeated under rigorously controlled scientific conditions, in many studies and not only in tests designed and run by remote viewing proponents."  Not only is this patently false, but it's a tad out of place under the heading of "Skepticism."
I look forward to edits that actually add content to this page, instead of trying to enforce a point of view.  (Though I did like the edit that just randomly inserted a "la la la" in there.)  --Malvolio80 19:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Edits 

message: I added a Ph. D. work on the subject. We need good stuff for the readers afterall. Not just journalistic work.Bragador 01:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science of Remote Viewing 

message: The Wikimedia help desk has received information from a reader Juliet.
Just a note to say Thank you!! for Wikipedia!! I checked out "remote viewing" and got a really clear description of it, with the true background of Ed Dames, setting the record straight. I knew I could count on Wiki!
Well done to all who have worked on this article. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange, as this article makes no mention of Ed Dames. It links to articles that do, however. --NightMonkey 02:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Words of praise

message: I'm removing this:
:A little discussed skeptical viewpoint is as follows. Since the CIA announced several years ago that the UFO phenomenon of the Cold War was fostered by it and other US agencies to mask the testing of secret aircrafct projects, it is surprising that few have considered that Remote Viewing might best be regarded as a similarly useful distraction. See Remote Sensing.
This was added without sourcing from an anonymous IP. As it stands, it is "Original Resarch", and, as such, is not permitted on WikiPedia. If there are verifiable and reliable sources for this, I'm not against adding a referent mention. However, since, as the parahraph's opening says it is "a little discussed viewpoint", I can't see how it would merit inclusion here. Thanks. --NightMonkey 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second NightMonkey on that. Always back your entries with a source. Bragador 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:NOR problem

message: I removed both of these paragraphs for being POV:
: Most true scientists can safely assume that remote viewing is a load of rubbish, and ignore it for all intents and purposes. Wishful thinking has never counted as a science, even a wish for such a useful skill.
: EDIT March 15, 2006 by cjg...RUBBISH: Try reading David Morehouse's personal experience in PSYCHIC WARRIOR and his other more recent books. It isn't something ANYONE can do, you must be open to it, trained somewhat, and naturally talented.  Fascinating subject to say the least.
Bubba73 (talk), 04:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV remarks removed 

message: OK, I might be nitpicking, so I want a sanity check here. Since Remote Viewing is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists, should the "Skepticism" section come before the "Proponent's Claims", as opposed to how it is now? If there's no compelling argument for the status quo within a few days, I'll change the order. Thanks. --NightMonkey 21:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --NightMonkey 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Joshdboz (excdpt that I don't understand the reason for putting the skepticism first).  This is what I think is a very good format for articles on pseudoecientific articles:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/Green_Cheese_Model_of_Lunar_Composition, and it shows the pro before the con.  I wish all such articles used that format.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I restored the old order, pending discussion. I took a look at that WikiProject template. Some ideas I like, some I'm not sure about. It's rather moot until that becomes something resembling official policy, unfortunately. --NightMonkey 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, on second reading, I can see some re-ordering would keep clarity. However, perhaps a better order is "Protocol" -> "History"-> "Skeptics" -> "Proponents' Claims"? This way, by the time a reader reaches "Skeptics" they might have some understanding of the article's subject. In the meantime, I'm switching it back to how it was, pending discussion. --NightMonkey 03:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over the article, I think for clarity's sake the order should be somethinkg like "History"-> "Protocol"-> "Proponents' claims"->"Skepticism"->"Trivia"->"Remote Viewers"...  But I would support a stronger opening statement that gave more explanation for why it is considered a pseudoscience, maybe just a sentence or two. Joshdboz 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order-based POV - Skepticism before Proponent's Claims? 

message: I haven't been to this article in a while, and cannot comment on the large changes that have been made.  However, the first sentence/definition seems to me to be a problem.  While it is appropriately referenced to , it is also an exact copy of his first line.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're citing word for word, don't you at least need some quotation marks to make it completely clear that this is a copied statement? Joshdboz 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copywrite Violation 

message: There is a serious lack of sourcing in this article. The Proponents Claims section has references to Targ's work, but they're not properly cited. The Skepticism section is all "some critics say" but those critics are for the most part not cited. There is one cite, to skepdic.com, but I can't get the link to work, and, I'm ashamed to say, I can't hack the format. Most of the rest of the article has wikilinks here and there, but not much to support various specific claims.
I put in a couple  templates, and I removed one claim entirely, that of pseudoscience, as simply too pejorative to survive without a cite. I will note that saying "RV is pseudoscience" seems like a malformed claim anyway--what the critics would be saying is that the alleged experimental validation represents pseudoscience, not remote viewing itself. I don't see much value in putting that claim back--if you want to debunk, strengthening the citing on the Skepticism section would be more productive. (Please note that I think RV, and all types of ESP, are hogwash--I'm challenging this in the interest of a better article, not because I believe in RV, so please don't bother attacking me on those grounds.) · rodii · 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I edit lots of pseudoscience articles, among others, and wanted as a matter of courtesy to let editors here know where I am coming from. Please check my Editing principles for pseudoscience articles. I'm always keen to talk and try to reach consensus. I might add that PS is a legitimate English word and we don't need a source if the cap fits - but see my reasoning on the link just given. Mccready 02:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monthly statement 

message: ::This is an objection that sometimes comes up with the Paranormal tag.  One of the Paranormal project's goals is to make sure paranormal subjects are covered in a NPOV way--they are not just a bunch of true believers with a pro-paranormal agenda.  One of Paranormal's main tasks is identifying and categorizing Wikipedia's many paranormal articles.  Sometimes it is difficult to see where to draw the line, but in this case it is obvious.  Remote viewing is paranormal by definition--regardless of whether it is true or not.  I am replacing the tag. Puddytang 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paranormal link removal. 

message: I've inserted numerous citation requests.  RV has many, many sources, and so I think this is fair and I think the citations would be easy to come by.  And the text obviously comes from a published source.  I also deleted one POV statement which, in the form it took, was not supported by the source mentioned (though not cited).  Let's either cite it or delete it.  For those who believe in RV, this is the only way to keep people who like to throw around the word "pseudoscience" from deleting it in the end.  I'll only delete it if no one cares enough to source it after a goodly bit of time. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation requests

message: ::The main fame of remote viewing comes from the CIA's research.  How can this article discuss remote viewing without even mentioning the CIA.  The article used to say:
The idea of remote viewing was first developed by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff at the Stanford Research Institute at the behest of the CIA in 1972.  The program, initially codenamed Scanate, apparently came as a response to Soviet research into psychic phenomena, on which the USSR was believed to have spent 60 million rubles in 1970.  Initially, the project focused on a small number of individuals who appeared to show potential, most famously New York artist Ingo Swann.
The program went through a number of changes over the years, both in structure and in name.  Later code names include Gondola Wish, Grill Flame, and in 1991, Star Gate.  Over the course of twenty years, the United States spent $20 million on Star Gate and related projects.  Over the course of its existence more than forty personnel worked on the project, including more than twenty remote viewers.  Though the program was classified throughout its existence, columnist Jack Anderson wrote about it in the mid-1980s. Since 2003, documentation relating to the Scanate, Grill Flame, Gondola Wish and Centrelane programs has been mostly declassified (1% or less remains classified) and is available to the general public under the FOIA. 
Concerns about the program's effectiveness led the CIA to contract the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to provide an evaluation.  This showed no evidence supporting claims of paranormal ability.
Since the end of the government's involvement with the Stargate Project, remote viewing has entered the private sector.  Companies such as PSI TECH claim to teach remote viewing procedures, and numerous books on remote viewing history and methods exist.
::I realize this isn't cited properly, but it should be easy to find out if these FOIA documents actually exist.  Is the CIA embarrassed that it spent 20 million researching an effect that doesn't exist?  The article isn't complete with out a mention of CIA research and Russian research.  It is also incomplete without a discussion of the protocols--which is the only thing that distinguishes "remote viewing" from regular old ESP!  Oh, and those protocols derive from Scientology which is also not even mentioned.  It also needs to mention "paranoid views of the CIA": the theory that Remote Viewing worked so well that they set up a bogus group for the AIR to debunk, just so they could keep it secret. This article is bad!  Maybe we should restore an older version with a bunch of reference tags so we can collect the references--this is kind of hard to do when the article has been deleted down to where it contains almost no information.  Puddytang 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i hadded a popular section about eragon is that okay? Smith Jones 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Some verifiable information from reliable sources would be handy in the discussions mentioned above.  Shot info 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the CIA?  An article about RV that contains no information about Remote Viewing? 

message: Is this site [] remotely a RS?  Shot info 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RS?