Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 10

message: I think that nominating this article for GA status is waaaaay premature.  There are a lot of grammatical issues and general readability issues that need to be addressed.
I have made edits to the first paragraph and first paragraph only.  Feel free to work at it yourselves. Aside from adding the bit about the "phenomena suggestive of survival of consciousness", and the deletion of the last sentence, the paragraph reads roughly the same, but tighter and better I think.  
I'm going to wait a while before I go onto the next paragraph. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits

message: The "Laboratories, organizations and journals" is already partially integrated into the article. The first paragraph of "Laboratories, organizations and journals" is the same as the 2nd paragraph of "Parapsychology today". I suggest we integrate "Laboratories, organizations and journals" into the rest of the article and delete that section all together. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, perhaps it could go into the "Research" lead? VanTucky (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be integrated into the entire research section. Not just the first research paragraphs. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather see this section stay, especially since I had plans to expand it in my original draft.  But I'm willing to compromise since much of that material is present both in the article and the external links section.  I would be even more agreeable if we could compromise by including a small list of links to the major journals in the external links section. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Si, eso es bueno. VanTucky (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, go ahead an delete/integrate the section, and I'll make a short links list and install it. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's actually quite a long list. You should probably trim it down to about 5 links per section. 5 for "University research laboratories", 5 for "Independent research organizations" and 5 for "Journals". Wikidudeman (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but simply choosing a number seems kind of arbitrary.  These are the major journals that are currently in press and written in English.  Instead of limiting by numbers, we should think about limiting by criteria.  What criteria do you think we should use to decide what gets put in the external links list and what does not?--Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Integrating " Laboratories, organizations and journals" into article as a whole

message: I'm Integrating Laboratories, organizations and journals into Parapsychology today. I noticed that the former seems to be mostly dealing with labs and journals in North America. I cut a few out and integrated it into the flow of parapsychology today. I would like to see some more cut out and others added in from other parts of the world, other than North America. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fine for now. I was going to complete similar sections for Europe, Asia, and Australia, but didn't get around to it before my sandbox version was installed.  Perhaps I will suggest a few when we get around to fine-tuning 'Parapsychology Today'. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and deleted the material, even from the Parapsychology today section.  Most of that material is present elsewhere in the article, including the external links and the references.  Since I wrote the material originally, I doubt that anybody else will complain about it disappearing. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrating Laboratories, organizations and journals into Parapsychology today 

message: ... needs grammar cleanup. I'm not touching it myself. The third sentence (as of this timestamp) is a run-on sentence --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. VanTucky (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crit part of intro

message: I installed the following type of format on the paranormal article some time back to counter-act boring and useless bulleted see also lists. It's based on some of the see also's I've seen in FAs and resembles tagging.
Paranormal: Cryptozoology, Forteana, Ghosts, Mysticism, New Age, Occult, Paranormal fiction, Paranormal explanations for UFOs Parapsychology, Places thought to be haunted, Psychics, Supernatural, UFOs, UFO reported sightings
Skepticism: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Debunking, Hoaxes, James Randi, Prizes offered for paranormal proof, Skepticism
Science: Anomalous phenomena, Fringe science, Pseudoscience, Scientific method
Maybe something like this could be used here as well. There's potentially several related articles that would be appropriate to the see also section, and a format like this could include them without looking gawdy. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: My edits to the first paragraph seemed to go over fairly well, so I have moved onto the second paragraph.  The newest changes are significant.  I tried to keep the general idea of what was there already, but there have been a lot of changes.  If you don't like something, either edit it yourself, talk to me about it, or both. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Edits 

message: Instead of making a new section for each change in meaning I'd like to make (I don't see many at this point), I'm just going to lump them into a section.
*Plan to change "methods of parapsychologists as a pseudoscience" to "work of parapsychologists..."
Why? Many of the critics who feel this way are referring to the work in general as pseudoscience, or the conclusions as pseudoscience, or the ideas as pseudoscientific, etc. even when they think the methods themselves are scientific. Taken as a whole it's pseudoscientific, according to them. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right. VanTucky (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nealparr's changes

message: ...needs to be worked out here. Editing it too many times could look like an edit war when all we're trying to do is make the sentence clear. I personally am not into the word "sometimes" because it's not like Hyman and Alcock only criticize it some of the time. Something like "and others" needs to be there because of non-scientists like Randi. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third paragraph of intro, first sentence...

message: *Lab/Labs were changed to laboratory/laboratories. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made

message: When you say the sentence is unclear, what specifically about it needs clarifying? Is it the "others" part, or who the "some" in the scientific community is? VanTucky (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, much better. VanTucky (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds OK to me. Tim Vickers 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've experienced disputes in the past over the definition of "Many". Some individuals believe that "many" is a vague POV term and frequently change it to "some". I fear that if we say that "Many scientists" without providing a general number, we might have the same problems in the future. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like the notability and detailed nature of the criticism as outlined in the article basically makes the fact that there are many, rather than just a few, scientific critics a truism. VanTucky (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In general you can avoid the "many/some" argument by citing a leading proponent of any controversial view "Scientists such as Bob Smith say.." or "In a rebuttal of this view, the psychologist Pete Brown wrote that.." This makes a statement much less controversial and also reads better as it is more specific. Tim Vickers 23:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, There's no one specific notable scientist opponent of parapsychology or it's methods or conclusions. There are dozens that come to mind but we can't cite all of them. We need to just state that "some" scientists. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a handful of "strong" opponents however. Alcock is the notable leading scientist in opposition to parapsychology. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is Alcock "the" notable leading scientist opposed to parapsychology? Why not Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, Blackmore, Shermer, Asimov, or Sagan? All of these people are/were strong critics of parapsychology and all of which are probably more notable. We can't limit it to one single person. We should either list a few of the MOST notable, say "some" or say "many". Wikidudeman (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's the guy that keeps showing up in all these sources. Those other guys (as far as I've seen) don't show up half as much. Or even if you said "Scientists such as Holmes, Watson, and Moriarty", that'd be fine too. I don't know, Annalisa would probably know better than I. I'll skate on the idea that if you add up all the people who have ever said something bad about parapsychology, it probably counts up to the ambiguous "many". I only get concerned when the words "most scientists" are used. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that the fact that Alcock appears in most of the referenced sources automatically means he should be "the notable leading scientist" on the issue while they are so many more notable scientists who fit the bill. I do BTW agree that "many scientists" is fine. I just hope it doesn't result in edit wars. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Does this article meet the criteria to be a Featured Article? I believe it probably does, nominating it for Featured Article might also bring some more editors to help improve it. I've added it for FA nomination here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parapsychology. Please add input and help progress the FA review to help it become a Featured Article ASAP. If you believe it's FA criteria then show your support by saying Support and then giving a reason. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's quite there, but I'm looking forward to input from others who have worked on FA articles before. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Nomination 

message: I've simplified the wording of the definition to read: The rebirth of a soul or other non-physical aspect of human consciousness in a new physical body after death. VanTucky (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. In fact, this is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say the same thing can be said in less words. These types of changes can tighten the article up considerably. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reincarnation def 

message: We've been having contributions be made on a daily basis up until a few days ago and then nothing. Where did everyone go? The article is being nominated for FA and some of the oppositions say it needs new work and is being worked on yet nothing is being done. If we're going to work on it then let's work on it. Should we put it through peer review? Input would be great. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a few weeks.  What's the hurry?  Annalisa wants to add some things, I have yet to go through it. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Annalisa's on vacation. I'm working on some offsite projects. What I'd like to do is go through and tighten the prose, but I really don't have the time for it right now. I could do the work, but not all the discussions surrounding it : ) Really, I'm just happy it's stable. No edits for several days is a good thing. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What needs done? 

message: Should we run the article through Peer review? Input? Wikidudeman (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've already put the article up for peer review, which I think is a crucial idea if we want this to be an FA. Antelan talk 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Run article through [[Wikipedia:Peer review]]

message: Should the External links be trimmed down? Too many of them for various parapsychological institutions? Wikidudeman (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is per SandyGeorgia if I'm not mistaken. Antelan talk 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I also agree that we don't need to list that many of them. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Annalisa had strong opinions on this and is currently on vacation. I'd wait until she gets back as she might have some thoughts on it.--Nealparr (talk to me) 00:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not urgent, so there's no reason not to wait for a few days. Antelan talk 05:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prune the large External link farm per [[WP:EL]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NOT]]

message: There is too much uncited text, and a keen eye needs to run through the prose. From User:SandyGeorgia) Wikidudeman (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is that issue I was talking about before, where a citation covers the entire paragraph, but for some reason people don't see it like that and want a [1] after every period. Not sure how to fix it considering the entire article is indeed sourced. I do agree that a keen eye needs to run through the prose. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the same source backs every sentence in a paragraph, then we can re-invoke the source after every few sentences (especially the more contentious ones or the ones that are less obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject). Antelan talk 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that's what's necessary, but I think it's redundant and is one of the things I personally find annoying in articles. Today's Robert Baden-Powell doesn't do that. Sure, controversial articles may require more citations, but that's because they have more controversial statements. When a statement isn't controversial, it doesn't really need a source. Repeating the same source over and over just because it's controversial article is, in my opinion, insulting the reader. But, again, if that's what's needed, go for it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being explicit about sources for controversial statements is an obligation to the reader, not an insult. Antelan talk 05:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said above that controversial statements require citations. Citing every other thing in an article (non-controversial statements) because the topic itself is controversial insults the reader's intelligence. Just a personal opinion. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's what I said. There is no disagreement here. Antelan talk 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use more citations

message: Statements that will become dated need to be refined, example: Contemporary parapsychological research has waned considerably. From User:SandyGeorgia) Wikidudeman (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's contemporary parapsychological research, I'm not sure how else that would be worded. It's not like Wikipedia articles are printed and set in stone, so if for some reason parapsychology grew all of the sudden, it could easily be changed to reflect the new status. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a simple solution would be to frame it in years or decades. For example, "After the 1970s" or "Since the 1990s". Antelan talk 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a rewording, but it would say pretty much the same thing. If contemporary is present day, and "after the 1970s" or "since the 1990s" is up to and including the present day, they still mean contemporary. The issue was "statements that will become dated". The only thing that would make the statement dated is if parapsychology started growing. Then it would read "after the 1970s parapsychology waned before it started growing again in 200X". Until that happens, it's all contemporary. I mean, you guys can change it to say the same thing another way, but it's still saying the same thing. That's what I was saying. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the growing part would still be dated, per your definition. Antelan talk 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's dated. The section is called Parapsychology today. It's dated to the present tense, contemporary. The issue was "statements that will become dated", or statements that will become past tense dated, or statements that will change over time. For waning to become past tense dated, or change from the present tense, parapsychology would have to grow, then that would be its new present tense. It's very unlikely that will happen, but if it does it can be updated since it's an ever evolving article. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I follow you. Thanks. Antelan talk 12:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Np. --Nealparr (talk to me) 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improve statements which can become dated