Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 12

message: Hi!  I am a member of the WP:LoCE and am copyediting your article. This paragraph in the "Psychokinesis on random number generators" section confused me:
:Major meta-analyses of the RNG database have been published every few years since appearing in the journal Foundations of Physics in 1986.[19] PEAR founder Robert G. Jahn and his colleague Brenda Dunne say that the effect size in all cases was found to be very small, but consistent across time and experimental designs, resulting in an overall statistical significance. The most recent meta-analysis was published in Psychological Bulletin, along with several critical commentaries.[20][21] The meta-analysis was composed of 380 studies, which some researchers say has produced an overall effect size that was very small but statistically significant.
Was the 1986 research performed by Jahn and Dunne, and did the recent meta-analysis support their findings?  The paragraph's second and fourth sentences are nearly identical, but I wasn't sure how to correct it without losing or changing your intended meaning.  Galena11 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, good question.  Yeah, when it says "effect size," it means positive effect size, that is to say, it supports the hypothesis that psi exists.  And the effect was "statistically significant," meaning that there was, at most, a 5% chance that it could have happened by accident.  Nice work Galena. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit question 

message: for reasons i have explained elsewhere, i try to avoid substantial edits on this and related subjects. I have however restored a few wording that are more expressive of NPOV. figure legends are not the place for what needs more extended arguments. Randi has certainly shown that some purported psychic phenomena can be explained by trickery, he may believe that all are, and he may even be right, but that is something much harder to actually demonstrate & a figure legend is not the place to make overly expansive statements. I also changed one or two similar instances. 
:I think accepted compromise wording should be left alone, especially in legends and lede sections of featured articles. DGG (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DGG, I wish you didn't avoid substantial edits on this and related subjects, but then you wouldn't be DGG. Oh well. ScienceApologist 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  DGG really is able to get along with everyone. And the edits are excellent.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV drift

message: The major problem that this article has is that it presumes that because something is published in a respectable journal or because a proponent has a position at a major research institution that therefore the subject itself must derive respectability. This is simply not the case. We need to be clear that parapsychology is on the extreme fringe of academic legitimacy and is not the "respectable arm" or paranormal research as many here at Wikipedia seem to think. What we have are various scientists who have interest in a rather weird belief that has, as of yet, had no corroboration that there are psychic energies observably at work in the world. I will shortly list the wordings and weightings of this article that are leaning the article too heavily to this peculiar original research point-of-view. ScienceApologist 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll need a lot of sources more reliable than the current ones that specify that parapsychology is extremely fringe in order for us to give the tone that it is such. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well make some edits so we can judge whether or not they will work out. I don't know what sort of changes you would make so I think it would be best to make them just so we can see and if they are disputed they can be changed to be improved or reverted. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how a work criticizing the status of the field almost 25 years ago is going to provide a framework for a neutral discussion of the field today.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it's actually in a worse position today than it was 25 years ago. I'm going to put a tone template on the article and begin to make edits. ScienceApologist 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No template is needed if you are planning to make the edits. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess that's true. I'm still gathering sources and trying to see where to go with all this, though. I would appreciate keeping the template up to see if it can generate some publicity. I may start an RfC or post on the fringe noticeboard as well. ScienceApologist 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to let you know that I'm still gathering ideas for a proposal and some edits. I like to move carefully on featured articles. ScienceApologist 15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with tone

message: It took hours and hours of work to get this article to FA status. I haven't read through the massive amounts of comments above, but please let's drop these templates, stop edit warring, and discuss it. People get paid for their work at Wikipedia in having the satisfaction of getting an article to featured status. Please consider that and stop the disruption and let's work it out. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I'm done wasting my time when ONE editor can disrupt the whole damn thing. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the frustration that many of us have experiencing with regards to Martinphi. Consider unwatching the page for a week and coming back later, which is what I did (in fact, i have not had parapsychology watchlisted since September). Please don't leave the project, though. Antelan talk 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to hear that you consider SA to be disruptive. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That isn't what he meant to say.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martinphi, that type of intentional misinterpretation of sources (the source being me, in this case) is pathognomonic of your broader editing techniques. Antelan talk 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Maybe that's not what you were thinking, but it is a valid inference from what you said: you stated that what Nealparr was experiencing with SA was similar to what others experienced with me.  Nealparr had talked about disruption.  You were, thus, calling me disruptive, while at the same time admitting that in your opinion what SA has done is similar to what I have done- in other words, in your opinion, we're both disruptive. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that same syllogism, you are now admitting that you are disruptive. Your choice is either to agree that you are disruptive, or you to admit that your inference is erroneous. Antelan talk 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely observed you. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but you're misinterpreting your observation and then informing the observed that this interpretation of his actions is actually what he was doing, rather than what the observed actually was doing.  Shot info 07:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The consensus that we achieved with this article is remarkable and it will prevail.  Don't let all of this barking scare you off. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Coupled with the concept of editing while on a serious wikibreak LOL!  :-)  Shot info 06:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or dropping digs in at someone while they're away, huh? : ) I'm done contributing. Doesn't mean I'm not going to respond to childish unnecessary comments. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only the digs were dug while you where away, hmmm ;-).  Remember, your the one who spat the dummy here.  Have enough editors soothed away your troubles with enough "Please stay" pleas?  Or perhaps you could just adopt a bit of WP:NAM coupled with a bit of WP:CHILL? :-)  Shot info 06:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall ever talking to you in my comments nor being uncivil with ScienceApologist who knows exactly how I feel about his point of view, and knows I consider it extreme. So you can take all of your out-of-the-blue personal attacks and find some other place to post them. How about a little WP:NPA or WP:DICK? Save it for someone willing to put up with it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -Sigh- But I'll also take that WP:CHILL and end on a good note. No hard feelings to anyone here (Shot Info, ScienceApologist, Antelan, etc.). I am a fan of Wikipedia (see my departing essay). It's just not for me. Good luck everyone. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not attacking you, but you have to admit, WP is resplendent with editors who get their knickers in a knot, and storm out of the building....then come back.  I was just hoping you would be somewhat more original.  Nevertheless, enjoy your wikibreak, but make it a wikibreak...no peaking now :-) (PS:  note the emoticon).  Shot info 10:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to cleanup a bit first. Honestly, I'm so busy IRL that I won't have time to peak : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's best to ease your way in. I edited the first few days when I took my 2 month wikibreak. It's like tapering off of a drug... Antelan talk 06:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA plea

message: That tag needs to disappear.  As Wikidudeman said above, it is inappropriate for Science Apologist to place a tag for edits that he plans to make himself.  And his complaints are not specific enough for anybody else to do anything about them. (Unless of course, someone wants to draft a major rewrite wiping out all of the references peer-reviewed journals and featuring the efforts of psychics and ghost busters instead.)  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 02:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Annalisa, I understand what you're saying about that.  The problem is that tags are the last resort for an editor.  If after a while SA's contentions fail to persuade, then let's take it off.  However, as I see it editors have a right to tag when in good faith they find that the article does not meet with their understanding of the Wikipedia rules.  To revert tags is to completely silence an editor's influence on the article for the duration of, say, a mediation process, and I don't think that is appropriate.  On the other hand, keeping it on forever is also not appropriate.  But it can be left for a while. If the Arbitration Committee has failed to deal with SA, we will simply have to bend with the winds to the extent that we can without violating NPOV.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last resort?  I haven't see any effort to do anything here but complain.  Nor has he cited the specific Wikipedia rules that this article is supposedly breaking.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general consensus as of now seems to be that it is not necessary, and SA hasn't responded, even to my point that he'd be quite disappointed if we started doing as he says.  I'll take it off, but in general I believe we need to give tags a lot of leeway.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally have no problems with editors adding tags as they wish on articles they wish to (it's called editing, regardless of the status of the article).  However, after reviewing this, IMO, I can see that there are "issues" that perhaps need addressing but they can be addressed better (again IMO) by adding the tags into the appropropriate sections rather than at the top of the article.  I suspect that SA is offline at the moment, and I will support his decision in adding in tags throughout the article to aid in editing, but not at the top.  At least, not at the top without a comment in the talk page to let us know where to begin :-).  Shot info 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I can see why one might not want the tag on the article. I do, however, want to get some outside opinions on the matter. DGG seemed to offer a good idea, but I would, frankly, like some more opinions from other editors about how exactly this article should be framed. ScienceApologist 15:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone Tag

message: Third point?  What?!?!?!? Several meta-analysis are referenced through-out the article and they are discussed at length in section on experiments and in the criticism section.  Again, the lead is supposed to frame the rest of the article.  
:I'm going to let others weigh in before I even touch this.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, most editors here have agreed to discuss controversial changes on the talk page before placing them in the article.  If you want cooperation with this rewrite of yours, you might consider changing your approach. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was done at the behest of Wikidudeman. People are allowed to edit as they see fit. There is nothing wrong with what I did. If you think otherwise, get an outside opinion. ScienceApologist 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that you can edit as you see fit, but you are not going to get much cooperation from others with this approach. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit three is particularly problematic.  The comment above is correct: introductions summarize issues which are later elaborated in the article.  Reason given for removing the text is a POV statement; the article's sentence itself was a neutral statement.  There is a problem or two with the discussion about meta-analysis which follows in the article (direct quote of editorial not in "quotes", and muddled attribution of opinion in the statement), but the statement in the intro is npov and should be restored.Professor marginalia 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be a way to discuss meta-analyses in the lead, but I don't see it. Obviously we cannot say that "These statistical analyses have attracted much attention and debate." because this is not a verifiable statement. ScienceApologist 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article goes on to describe the attention and debate, and these descriptions are well sourced. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and I would say that they directly contradict the claim that "These statistical analyses have attracted much attention and debate." I would say rather that the attention and debate that they attracted was limited at best. ScienceApologist 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We could say that "these statistical analyses have attracted much attention and debate in the pages of scientific journals" and cite with examples from the Psychological Bulletin BPS, and others. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, there wasn't that much attention and debate, only a small amount. ScienceApologist 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly do not need the word 'much' (or even 'small') in this lead, but just out of curiosity have you actually read any of these meta analyses and the correspondence that took place in these journals? --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I have read them. I also think that claiming "attention" is a bit far-fetched given that parapsychology is generally ignored. ScienceApologist 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  Then you must've been up late last night because just yesterday you were denying that articles like these even existed. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can cut out the personal attacks whenever you want. Fair warning: I'm keeping track of them and will file the appropriate complaint when the time is necessary. ScienceApologist 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointing out your own contradictions on this talk page is not a personal attack. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with that defense. ScienceApologist 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And good luck with your ArbCom case. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's sweet of you. XOXOX ScienceApologist 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's one opinion.  It's one sufficiently contradicted by the rest of the article, however.Professor marginalia 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from what I see. The rest of the article seems to indicate that little attention has been paid to anything relating to parapsychology in mainstream academia. There are a lot of sources which support this point as well. ScienceApologist 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-analyses in the lead

message: This is a FA.  Using WP:BRD is unnecessarily disruptive and unjustified for initiating widesweeping changes given the FA context.  It will leave the same kind of mess behind as a bull's redecoration of a china shop.  FA is as solid a peer review process as exists at WP, hence considerable evidence already exists that the content is well supported in its current form.  The burden to "identify areas of dispute" should fall on the editor proposing any big changes. Professor marginalia 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this statement. In fact, in theory, someone can revert a change they think is problematic immediately thus maintaining the integrity of the FA page. For example, the edits I made don't seem to have caused the article to be destroyed. ScienceApologist 20:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we'll just have to see then.  Professor marginalia 21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I've maintained the spirit of some of Science Apologist's changes in my recent edits, I do find his recent campaign to align this article with his point of view to be extremely disruptive.  His disregard for the FA peer review process and the recent ArbCom decision on the status of parapsychology is alarming and will not be tolerated. The only reason that I did not revert his changes immediately is because I attempt to adhere to WP:1RR and wanted to give others some time to weigh in.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that some of SA's edits were helpful, as were some of yours. ScienceApologist's definition of parapsychologist is probably not necessary in the lead. At the same time, you far overstate the case of parapsychology in the United States, and you have selected rare exceptions in pointing out the very few parapsychological papers that have been published in mainstream journals. This is an FA, and that is all the more reason to continue clarifying and improving it. Antelan talk 03:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found some of SA's edits helpful too.  I think that I might've originally introduced the terms 'quantitative and qualitative' in the lead, and I don't mind being reminded that there are more public-friendly terms that can be substituted in an article intended for general audiences, even if I can't agree with SA's rationale for doing so.  I have not overstated the case of parapsychology in the United States in this article. However, on the talk page, SA has frequently denied that parapsychology exists in academia at all and has suggested that parapsychological research has been completely ignored by mainstream scientists.  All it takes is one example to refute his wholesale assertions, and that's what I have done on the talk page.  Parapsychology is tiny field at the margins of academia, and the situation in the US in particular is rather dismal.  I won't deny that, but the article already does a good job of presenting this.  SA is trying to shift a neutral article to his negative point of view, and that really shouldn't be tolerated, no matter one's particular perspective on parapsychological research. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 04:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I wasn't more clear. This is the diff I was looking at, and here you overstate parapsychology's impact by selecting the few papers that have been published in the mainstream journals. These are the extreme exception to the rule; that you would highlight these in the lead is why I am saying you are overstating the case of parapsychology, especially within the United States. Antelan talk 04:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how this diff demonstrates me overstating the case of parapsychology in the U.S. specifically.  Perhaps you could clarify?  (I'm confused because one of three papers I referenced was from a European journal.) When it comes to papers referenced in this diff, I limited the citations to only those that were already referenced in the article (since this is the lead), and only those citations that pertained to meta-analyses, since that is what the sentence specified.  Personally, I find it unecessary for this statement in the lead to be referenced like this since the article that follows it is well sourced, but Science Apologist seems to be demanding it.  If you think the statement stands alone without the references (as it did before SA arrived here) go ahead and remove them.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 06:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that the refs are unnecessary - I'm saying that the statement itself is exaggerated and should be removed or substantially modified. I'm not commenting on Europe because I haven't looked into parapsychology there, but you are overstating it in the US, and the previous version of that paragraph is preferable. Antelan talk 06:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which previous version? The one that had our consensus, or the one that SA modified?  Either way, if you find my edits objectionable, go ahead an change them. ;-) --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click the diff above, I think that the specific portion of the paragraph that we're discussing (i.e., not the changes you made in the first paragraph) could/should be changed back to read more like the "previous" part of the diff. If these sentences have been substantially since I last checked, then nevermind this. Antelan talk 07:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BRD]]

message: I have suggested that Analisa Ventola be restricted from editing in article space at this article due to her obvious conflict of interest. The discussion is here. -- ScienceApologist (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no blanket ban rule in WP:COI.  Editors whose COI interferes with editing so that their self-interest conflicts with the policies and aims of WP may be banned, but there is no policy to ban any editor preemptively. WP content disputes should be settled with refs, not with selectively evicting some of the editors.  -- Professor marginalia (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about the content disputes. This is about a specific conflict of interest concern. As I said, I welcome her contributions on the talkpage, but I'm not at all pleased to see that she has been paid to promote parapsychology on the internet. -- ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paid to promote a topic and rewarded for accuracy on a topic are two different things. You're framing a grant or scholarhip award for accuracy as a reason to support restricting a user from participating in an article about a subject -- not an association, organization, or biography. WP:SCOIC doesn't even call for blocking from editing an article where there's a strict conflict of interest, much less a topical subject matter where they have a professional expertise. It's like asking someone who has an affiliation with the Republican National Committee not to participate in politics articles. It'd have more merit if this were the Parapsychological Association aritlce, and it's not. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good, then as an official mouthpiece for PA, I hope you keep in mind that your edits look like they are acting on behalf of that organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already explained that I am not an official mouthpiece for the PA at WP:COIN noticeboard.  My blog is affiliated with the Center for Research on Consciousness and Anomalistic Psychology at Lund University.  Not that it makes a difference either way, since my actions, whether it be here or at my blog are entirely self-directed.  You have not shut me up with your little smear campaign.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest discussion

message: And now there is yet another big blazing banner across the page, go figure. Anyone else think ScienceApologist has been disruptive enough here? SA, you make great edits, and often, but here you're (even if by accident) tanking the article. Can you voluntarily leave it alone? And can we please get the big ugly banner off the FA article? Annalisa didn't create the article and more edits were made by others than by her. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah-now the FA is sporting a new COI template like a shiny black eye.  Only evidence for this concern so far is a single diff showing the editor removed a poorly formatted, trivial nothing self-published link, which anyone can see increased the overall quality of the "further reference" list.  And these tactics aren't disruptive?  What is really going on in here?  That template needs to come down.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's really going on is an attempt to bring the article in line with NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between incorporating a balanced representation to achieve NPOV and rewriting the article in such a way as to convey a snooty "pinched nose" style put-down of the subject.  I've found that editors with strong personal antipathies toward an article's subject oftentimes struggle recognizing that distinction.  Professor marginalia (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: COI banner

message: I don't see any reason why any substantial changes to the article can't be discussed on the talk page first, a consensus reached, and then implemented. This allows everyone to participate without disrupting the stability of the article itself, and recent editing without consensus has been disruptive. Discussing things on the talk page without editing the actual article allows people to point out things that may not have already been considered. For example, the recent use of a direct quote (no longer in the article). A consensus was formed months ago that direct quotes were counter productive, and we all agreed to avoid them as much as possible. Any one editor wishing to make substantial changes may not be aware that the various groups of editors have already addressed these things previously.
Some changes that people want (for example dumping "quantitative and qualitative research") aren't that bad, and as you can see by the current version, everyone's fine with those changes. Assuming that the wording in the previous version was chosen for a particular POV is just that, an assumption. I chose that wording myself months ago when I was trying to cut down on the bytes size of the article. It read something like blah, blah, blah, blah, basically a bunch of stuff that was experimental and other stuff that was survey approach, in other words "quantitative and qualitative", so I shortened it to save on byte size. It was purely to save space. There's nothing POV about it, and those types of assumptions are disruptive. By raising the point on the talk page first, there's an opportunity to point out why the choice was made and discuss alternatives.
I'm not going to participate in any wording choices or compromises for my own personal reasons (I'm tired), but I'll be more than happy to point out where in the history of developing this article wording choices were made, the compromises and consensuses reached, and why we developed it the way we did. Rather than just saying, "Oh it's all wrong and needs to be fixed," ask why choices were made. This article isn't just a featured article. It's a remarkable article that kicks Britannica's ass. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus editing

message: Here's the diff  and here's all the explanations.
Please comment where you see fit.
I love you all,
ScienceApologist (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I love you too. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right back atcha, babe. XOXOXO. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: General note: I personally prefer the itemization SA has provided. It helps editors decide which changes are the problem ones and which ones are improvements. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this really helpful, thanks. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: All that really follows the point about methodologies is "laboratory research and fieldwork". It seems kinda strange to say that this is somehow disputed. Are you really saying that parapsychologists only try to do research in a lab and in the field but that they're not really in a lab - or in the field for that matter.  ??? LutherFlint (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Attempts" is such an off-putting word that implies the negative. Like Luther said, it's only here to demonstrate that it occurs in the lab and in the field. Why not condense the line to "Parapsychological research involves laboratory research and fieldwork, which is conducted in association with a number of universities and privately funded laboratories around the world" and avoid the word that is bound to cause problems. (Note that I changed "conducted at" to "in association with". This is because fieldwork probably doesn't occur on-campus.) --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Attempts" is not a good edit.  Legitimate methods can be used improperly in any context, including engineering, science, medicine, statistics. Editors shouldn't demean their reader's intelligence hand holding them like toddlers throughout the article.  Professor marginalia (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with the responders above. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems to me to be a pedantic and wholly unnecessary point. It's about as obvious as can be from the article what the point of the research is.LutherFlint (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The first two lines describe what they do. This isn't really necessary as it's repetitive. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see in what way it should isolate the research performed to purely "measuring" the phenomenon.  Some of the criticism for example dwells on the problem of "reproducible" outcomes, or properly ruling out other causes to explain the phenomenon.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, in agreement with the responders. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Virtually everywhere people speak of "publishing research". Your point here seems rather pedantic.LutherFlint (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Six of one, half-a-dozen of another. I don't have a problem with it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that people usually speak of publishing the results of their research when they are being exacting in their wording. Think of this as a simple copy-edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the first point, the article already made this clear by context. That is, by saying such research "usually" appears in specialised journals "although" research has also appeared elsewhere, it is perfectly clear what the norm is. To make an issue of such a clear contrast seems like pedantry. Second point seems OK.LutherFlint (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the second point is an improvement, and I don't have any major objection to the first point, though I do have one comment. I'd personally change "though a few..." to "and on occasion..." because on these occasions it is noteworthy that mainstream science considered the research worthy of discussion. It's not an "although". It's an "occasion" worthy of note. "On occasion" still demonstrates the marginalization in accord with the rest of the article, because it means that it is not the norm. Because it's not the norm, it's all the more noteworthy and deserves more than a "though a few". --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On occasion is best, avoiding editorial quibbling about how many exactly qualify as "a few".    These journals do not qualify in my mind as "mainstream", aren't they academically prestigious pubs written for professional peers, not the "mainstream"?  The wl mainstream is really bad--takes reader to a disambig page where none of the choices apply in the context intended here. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more than 'a few' mainstream publications, even if we're only citing a few, so I have to agree that 'on occassion' is a better way to go.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: None here. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's "synthesized" then write "synthesized" rather than "written" surely!LutherFlint (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Six of one, half-a-dozen of another. I don't have a problem with it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meta-analysis generate study outcomes, I would say.  Meta-analysis studies are generated in the same sense computer programs or epidemiologists generate information.  Meta-analysis is a carefully designed study that uses disparate data sets together in a statistical "simulation" of sorts, looking for significant effect measures by simulating a sufficiently large data set statistically.  Results of diverse published studies are statistically recalculated to find approximate probable outcomes of a given effect or dependent variable from a larger yet statistically proportional data set. So the best definition is something between the two edits suggested so far.  The meta-analysis does measure outcomes of a simulated large data set.  They don't simply combine the results or the data (and in many cases at least the statisticians do work with the raw data sets).  The key is that the meta-analysis uses the disparate data elements to create a simulation of an actual outcome study by "massaging" the disparate data into properly proportional statistical homogeneity to simulate a suitably large data set.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall this edit is an improvement, but 'written' and 'their' are misleading words in this context.  Meta-analysis involves more than just writing, and parapsychologists don't only do meta-analyses on their own work.  Sometimes they look at the work of others.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any citation of a meta-analysis in parapsychology that used the work of someone who wasn't a parapsychologist? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I changed from "written" to "synthesized" above. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Here, from the website called Evidence Based Medicine, "Meta-analysis is a statistical technique..." and check out the first two word of the wiki article - meta-analysis. LutherFlint (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with saying statstical here. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meta-analyses are just about completely statistical, but there's a judgment "art" involved to defining its scope and setting protocols etc. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is in all forms of statistical analysis (at what level should you set alpha, etc.). Antelan talk 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, agree with the responders.  Nothing wrong with this particular adjective. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More explanation for edits

message: Parapsychological research involves a variety of methodologies, to Parapsychological research attempts to use a variety of methodologies,
Does parapsychology actually use the methodologies correctly or is it using them incorrectly? We have the parapsychologists themselves which claim that they do and then we have the skeptical associations and the various critical scientists like Hahn who say that they do not. So who do we believe? Neither. We cannot simply state that parapsychology involves a certain set of methodologies because doing so tends to insinuate that they are doing so properly. We can also not say that parapsychologists incorrectly use a variety of methodologies because that's also not NPOV. The only solution is to state that they try to use such methodologies and why they try to use them.
:All that really follows the point about methodologies is "laboratory research and fieldwork". It seems kinda strange to say that this is somehow disputed. Are you really saying that parapsychologists only try to do research in a lab and in the field but that they're not really in a lab - or in the field for that matter.  ??? LutherFlint (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Attempts" is such an off-putting word that implies the negative. Like Luther said, it's only here to demonstrate that it occurs in the lab and in the field. Why not condense the line to "Parapsychological research involves laboratory research and fieldwork, which is conducted in association with a number of universities and privately funded laboratories around the world" and avoid the word that is bound to cause problems. (Note that I changed "conducted at" to "in association with". This is because fieldwork probably doesn't occur on-campus.) --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Attempts" is not a good edit.  Legitimate methods can be used improperly in any context, including engineering, science, medicine, statistics. Editors shouldn't demean their reader's intelligence hand holding them like toddlers throughout the article.  Professor marginalia (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with the responders above. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What methods are correctly used?

message: which is conducted at a number of universities and privately funded laboratories around the world. to to determine whether or not psi phenomena can be measured. Parapsychology has been conducted at a number of universities and privately funded laboratories around the world.
Parapsychology does research with a particular goal in mind. They do not simply do any and all research that utilize the methods we mention. Rather they use the methods to attempt to see whether or not psi exists. This is an important point for the reader because it frames the research appropriately.
:Seems to me to be a pedantic and wholly unnecessary point. It's about as obvious as can be from the article what the point of the research is.LutherFlint (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The first two lines describe what they do. This isn't really necessary as it's repetitive. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see in what way it should isolate the research performed to purely "measuring" the phenomenon.  Some of the criticism for example dwells on the problem of "reproducible" outcomes, or properly ruling out other causes to explain the phenomenon.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, in agreement with the responders. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do parapsychologists use these methods?

message: Such research usually appears to Results of such research usually appear in
It is clear that "research" per se cannot appear in journals. What appears in journals is the result of research.
::Virtually everywhere people speak of "publishing research". Your point here seems rather pedantic.LutherFlint (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Six of one, half-a-dozen of another. I don't have a problem with it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that people usually speak of publishing the results of their research when they are being exacting in their wording. Think of this as a simple copy-edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What appears in journals, research or results?

message: though research articles on parapsychological topics have appeared in journals such as Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, and the British Journal of Psychology. to though a few research articles on parapsychological topics have appeared in mainstream scientific journals such as Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, and the British Journal of Psychology.
Here's the issue, there simply have not been very many mainstream publications on parapsychology in mainstream journals. This is verified by parapsychologists themselves who decry their marginalization. So it is important we qualify that there are fewer publications in mainstream journals as opposed to the specialized journals.
What is more, it is important we let the reader know what kind of journals the Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, and the British Journal of Psychology are. Letting them know they are mainstream scientific journals allows them to understand why they are mentioned.
::Re the first point, the article already made this clear by context. That is, by saying such research "usually" appears in specialised journals "although" research has also appeared elsewhere, it is perfectly clear what the norm is. To make an issue of such a clear contrast seems like pedantry. Second point seems OK.LutherFlint (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the second point is an improvement, and I don't have any major objection to the first point, though I do have one comment. I'd personally change "though a few..." to "and on occasion..." because on these occasions it is noteworthy that mainstream science considered the research worthy of discussion. It's not an "although". It's an "occasion" worthy of note. "On occasion" still demonstrates the marginalization in accord with the rest of the article, because it means that it is not the norm. Because it's not the norm, it's all the more noteworthy and deserves more than a "though a few". --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On occasion is best, avoiding editorial quibbling about how many exactly qualify as "a few".    These journals do not qualify in my mind as "mainstream", aren't they academically prestigious pubs written for professional peers, not the "mainstream"?  The wl mainstream is really bad--takes reader to a disambig page where none of the choices apply in the context intended here. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more than 'a few' mainstream publications, even if we're only citing a few, so I have to agree that 'on occassion' is a better way to go.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: None here. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How much was in other journals, and what are the other journals?

message: Parapsychologists have generated a number of meta-analytical studies based on this research, which combine the data from previous experiments into one large data set. to Parapsychologists also have synthesized meta-analytical studies based on their research that combine the results of previous published experiments.
A few issues. In the field, a meta-analysis isn't generated, it's synthesized. This is an important distinction because meta-analyses involve the creation of no new data. They are essentially fancy reviews. More than this, the "data" isn't combined in the sense that data that is collected under different conditions has to be analyzed differently. Instead what is combined in a meta-analysis are results. Also, meta-analyses do not generate meaningful data sets but rather present a variety of results in singular presentations. To say that the data gets combined is a misnomer.
:If it's "synthesized" then write "synthesized" rather than "written" surely!LutherFlint (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Six of one, half-a-dozen of another. I don't have a problem with it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meta-analysis generate study outcomes, I would say.  Meta-analysis studies are generated in the same sense computer programs or epidemiologists generate information.  Meta-analysis is a carefully designed study that uses disparate data sets together in a statistical "simulation" of sorts, looking for significant effect measures by simulating a sufficiently large data set statistically.  Results of diverse published studies are statistically recalculated to find approximate probable outcomes of a given effect or dependent variable from a larger yet statistically proportional data set. So the best definition is something between the two edits suggested so far.  The meta-analysis does measure outcomes of a simulated large data set.  They don't simply combine the results or the data (and in many cases at least the statisticians do work with the raw data sets).  The key is that the meta-analysis uses the disparate data elements to create a simulation of an actual outcome study by "massaging" the disparate data into properly proportional statistical homogeneity to simulate a suitably large data set.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall this edit is an improvement, but 'written' and 'their' are misleading words in this context.  Meta-analysis involves more than just writing, and parapsychologists don't only do meta-analyses on their own work.  Sometimes they look at the work of others.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any citation of a meta-analysis in parapsychology that used the work of someone who wasn't a parapsychologist? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I changed from "written" to "synthesized" above. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Describing meta-analyses

message: Several of these statistical analyses to Several of these analyses.
Meta-analyses are not on the whole statistics but are rather compilations. Statistics requires a cleaned, controlled sample. By definition, a meta-analysis cannot do this. If a person who does a meta-analysis claims that their analysis is "statistical" they are either being careless in their wording or are seriously misguided as to how to do statistics.
:Here, from the website called Evidence Based Medicine, "Meta-analysis is a statistical technique..." and check out the first two word of the wiki article - meta-analysis. LutherFlint (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with saying statstical here. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meta-analyses are just about completely statistical, but there's a judgment "art" involved to defining its scope and setting protocols etc. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is in all forms of statistical analysis (at what level should you set alpha, etc.). Antelan talk 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, agree with the responders.  Nothing wrong with this particular adjective. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics?

message: Following debate and discussion at the above AfD, the article Psiology now redirects to this article. Similarly, Talk:Psiology redirects to this page. Cheers, Anthøny 17:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psiology]] 

message: I see that a couple of editors have added a quote by Sam Harris to the Parapsychology Today section.  Although it is a very nice quote (and one which I find to be personally agreeable), I am removing it from the article.  When drafting the Parapsychology article, a number of editors from a variety of perspectives agreed to avoid the use of quotes because they tend to encourage criticism-and-response editing, which can destablize articles on controversial subjects.  I think that we should maintain this strategy. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes