Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 2

message: Suggesting a merge/move/something to paranormology, together with paraphysics.
The germans are already way ahead of us. (And the germans always know what thery're doing! Remember that)
See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphysik .. Any thoughts?
Thank you, 89.8.39.103 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paranormology (Spelling)

message: This article should not really have mentioned phenomena such as the Loch Ness Monster,which many parapsychologists would consider outside the field. They may be studied by  "anomalous psychologists", but an article on parapsychology would be a lot better focussed if it just dealt with the phenomena of extrasensory perception, precognition and out-of-the-body experiences. I was also surprised that, at no point in this article, was it made obvious that even if  could be proven that all paranormal phenomena were not genuinely paranormal we could still dedicate much psychological effort to an academic study of how people come to believe in such phenomena. Thus, parapsychology could then be re-defined as the study of beliefs in paranormal phenomena. 195.93.21.7 12:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anomalous parapsychology versus parapsychology 

message: The latest change said that parapschology is parascience instead of a science. But doesn't this depend on how the subject is studied? I mean, one can study the subject of parapsychology in a scientific way, I think. E.g. by throwing dices a hundred times while think of a certain number and see if this influences the outcome with the help of statistical analysis. It doesn't have to be unscientific. Thanks in advance for comments. Andries 13:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Science or parascience, subject of way of studying?

message: frauds". 
D.D. Home, John Edward, and James van Praagh (and probably everybody else in this list) have also been alleged to be frauds, and many view Eusapia Palladino or Uri Geller genuine. Putting a person in one or the other category seems to be entirely a matter of opinion (or of whether one is smart enough to see through their tricks). I'm in favor of joining the lists to an "alleged psychics" list. --Hob Gadling 16:29, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
:Agreed.  That seems like too much of a POV expression to have them categorized.  For some of them the evidence of them being fraudulent may be quite clear, but for others the matter might be more complicated and subject to interpretation.  It sounds like a matter better left to description in their individual wiki articles.  Perhaps the name "Claimed Psychics" or something along those lines might be better than "Alleged Psychics", to draw attention to the fact that it is these people who are claiming to be psychic, rather than others who are alleging that they are.   — Cortonin | Talk 03:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putative, alleged 

message: Although most of my edits were minor (dashes, grammar, spelling, a couple of additions to references and external links), I've also changed the summary slightly.  As it can be (and has been) argued that much, at least of parapsychology concerns phenomena that can't reasonably be described as mental (or cognitive), I thought that to define it as the study of mental phenomena was inappropriate.  Should I add a section explaining these arguments?  (I have added a link to an on-line article in which one such argument is presented, and a reference to a collection of papers some of which discuss other arguments in the same area.)  Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  I have seen mention of correlative interpretations of parapsychology evidence which do not include any mental ability.  They are rare, but those interpretations do exist.  In order to keep the opening sentence readable, while factoring in that possibility, I reorganized it to focus more on parasychology as a study of certain types of evidence, with a second sentence describing the more common interpretation of "mental abilities" as just the more common interpretation.  Then that sets the stage for the other article you added to be read under "status of the field".  How does that sound?   — Cortonin | Talk 20:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The content of the summary seems fine now (well, I have a quibble or two; if I can think of a way to resolve them, I'll post a suggestion here).  Incidentally, the sorts of argument that I had in mind are those represented by the King paper to which I linked.  The point is that in many or most (at least laboratory produced as opposed to hearsay) examples of psi phenomena there's no evidence of anything like knowledge or perception; in the classic Rhine test and its successors, for example, whatever the percentage of right answers, the subject actually has no idea which guesses are correct and which are incorrect.  Thus there's no relevant belief, and thus no possibility of knowledge.  In so far as there's something that needs to be explained, it usually seems to be physical or behavioural rather than mental.  Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there have been a number of experiments designed in other ways.  For example, they'll take something like an automated dice rolling machine, and instruct the participant, "Try to make it roll all 4s."  Many experiments similar to this have published positive results, and that type would seem to indicate some sort of cognitive role.  In addition, there have been experiments which compare or manipulate the expectations and beliefs of the participants, such as having some expect to fail and having others expect to succeed.  Many such experiments have published a significant correlation between high success scores and expectation of success, also seeming to indicate a cognitive role.   — Cortonin | Talk 07:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few changes, probably ripe for reversion 

message: A quick google search reveals that "skeptic" and "center" are overwhelmingly the preferred spellings, so we should use those here.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.  I'm sure it would bother me a bit if I were British.  :)  But I think the most fair solution, considering the international nature, is to check for the most common world usage.  (Which I like to use google for, as a count of how often a particular spelling is used.  This is useful for things like "judgment" versus "judgement", etc.)   — Cortonin | Talk 20:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  skeptic/scepticm center/centre 

message: The example given in this section is fairly "weak", because it's not a law. On the other hand various forms of PK violate "real" laws. For instance, moving objects via PK clearly violates conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. Most forms of ESP in general would seem to violate conservation of energy at some level, although some of these are more arguable. For instance, direct mind-to-mind communications would seem to require about the same sort of energy as a cell phone, increasing with range. I think the former is a more appropriate example, it's something that is in direct violation of known physics, and decidedly unlikely to change.
Another problem I have with this section is the statement that laws are simply "highly agreed upon" observations. While this may have been true at some point, conservation laws are now well understood at a basic theoretical level. Momentum is conservered because of the symmetry of the universe, not "just because we see it is". Unless the universe were to dramatically change shape in the future, this law is simply not going to change.
While supporters may pooh-pooh this argument, I think it's safe to say its on a much more solid footing than the article suggests. Yes, I realize the statement is written to provide both sides of the argument in order to be fair, but the result is something that strikes me as "soft". This argument is VERY VERY powerful, I think it should at least be presented as such.
Maury 13:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violating laws? 

message: This whole discussion is hinged on an incorrect assumption about the nature of categorization on Wikipedia. That an article is in a category indicates that the article has some relevance to that category. It is the article, and not the topic which is categorized. If you understand this, then a great many categorizations on Wikipedia will make sense to you, which are otherwise patently absurd. Placing Parapsychology in :Category:Pseudoscience is not a POV statement about parapsychology, it is an assertion that someone interested in the parapsychology article might benefit from further research through other articles which touch on pseudoscience, and conversely that people researching the pseudoscience category would benefit from the parapsycology article. Period. -Harmil 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization isn't what you think it is

message: I guess you guys are all "creationist" or "intelligent design" types, because our senses of sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing, and proprioception seem to work pretty reliably.  True, an eagle has sharper vision (but perhaps less field of view) and a dog better smell, but we are generally OK.  Generally, too, our muscles work OK and if we want to break a waterglass we can throw it. Except this psi stuff comes and goes, working best when a pro-psi person does the experiment.  Why is this?  How come most people's ESP, precognition, PK, and so on are so poor most of the time, when evolution developed our other senses so well?  How come we need Qi-Gong classes to look across the room and shatter a rock - you would think this kind of thing would have been great for primitive people to scare away (or force away!) bears and tigers? Or is it that the "intelligent designer" is teasing us, or got distracted in the middle of her/his work? Pdn 16:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution and Psi

message: :Famous parapsychologists wiki-links.I wish to suggest an extension of the list in this article, or at least a separate list, to include famous people who made contributions to parapsychology. There are articles in Wikipaedia on such people, including Carl Jung and Rupert Sheldrake and it would be good if there were some wiki-links to such names from this article. Cardamom195.93.21.7 17:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous parapsychologists wiki-links

message: The article states that Wolf Messing's daughter's book made him famous. What is this book called? I am not aware of such a book and I think it is a mistake. I will remove it when no answer is coming in one week time, or others hopefully, in case I forget.  See Wolf Messing, an enigmatic ‘psychic entertainer’ whom Sathya Sai Baba claims to have encountered by Alexandra Nagel Thesis composed as part of the MA-course Occult Trajectories II: Magic in Twentieth-Century Europe and North America, University of Amsterdam. Andries 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wolf Messing's daughter's book made him famous?

message: I removed the following--
:Sociologist Andrew Greeley, studying surveys and polls since 1978, found not only that the percentage of Americans admitting to psychic experiences had increased over a decade, but that about two thirds of college professors accepted ESP, and more than 25% of "elite scientists" believed in ESP. Other polls have shown that many scientists hold such beliefs privately but do not share such opinions publicly for fear of ridicule.
There's a lot of POV crap in this article, but this is ridiculous. (What decade? What's an elite scientist? "Many scientists hold such beliefs privately"? How many? Who says?) Since it's a paragraph full of highly doubtful claims and is completely unsourced, I think I was justified in deleting it. Please don't put it back unless you can find and include real references. --The Famous Movie Director 01:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I referenced the Greeley work and placed that portion back, but with significant rewording to more accurately reflect the reference.  I did not put the 25% of "elite scientists" portion back, because I agree that it is ambiguous in its description, and I was unable to acquire the original source to check the definition of "elite".  While I would not find the "other polls" sentence particularly surprising given the numbers already present, I have not yet seen a reference for a survey showing this.  If someone has (or can find) a reference for this, please provide it.  FRJohn 21:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted unsourced nonsense

message: Having been involved in the field of parapsychology for 40 years, I find this article less than complete and certainly biased. But I must wonder if that bias is the result of mutual editing as one then another makes minor alterations to the text. The result would, perforce, become a mangle of beliefs and would in the worst instance, actually be factually wrong.
There are a couple of immediate examples that evidence in the very first section, attemptin to define the field. Parapsychologists study ESP, PK and survival. Full stop. That's it. Nothing more. It is a boring field for many observers. The characterizations in the entry of the constituents of ESP, PK and so on are materially correct from my understanding (and practice) but there are at least two problems. First, where did this concept of anamoly come from? It is never seen in the journals, except perhaps in passing. A far better characterization is "mind-to-mind" (ESP etc), "mind-to-environment" (PK etc) and "environment-to-mind" (hauntings etc). This provides a framework from which the reader can begin to understand the inter-related points. Second there are some mis-categorizations. For example, it could be argued (and effectively has been) that psychometry is as much of an "environment-to-mind" ability as opposed to a "mind-to-mind" ability. 
What the entry appears to miss, although I confess I did not read it all with the greatest of care, is the most important recent finding and work going on in the field at this moment in time: that all these phenomena are very likely unified and that a single theory may explain them all. That ESP, PK and so on are variant manifestations of the same basis. Current theory is that we are dealing with a 'psi-wave' or 'psi-field'. 
Parapsychology has achieved stature as a science. The premiere professional organization, the Parapsychological Assoication (PA), is a member in good standing of the American Academcy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This is a key point. And true parapsychologists, many of them named in the article, are highly aware of the import of this association. For this reason, members have been as careful as any in other scientific fields to ensure proper experimental design, proper use of statistical methods consistent with behavioral research (since that at the end of the day is what parapsychology is all about), and peer-review in specific journals. 
Some mainstream scientists are uncomfortable with parapsychology. Recently, 'human consciousness' research has armed its way onto the scene, perceived quite different from parapsychology; apparently considered a much 'safer' discipline to fund, recognize and nurture at least from the academia viewpoint. The irony of course is that parapsychology and human consciousness research are variants of the same cloth and should be sharing information and data not operating at cross-purposes. Where in this entry do I find this point? 
I have made no edits to this page for two reasons: 
1. wiki-pedia is new to me
2. I don't wish to muck things up further
I trust these comments can serve to guide future changes and I leave to the authors to do so.
:Very good comments.  Welcome to Wikipedia!  I agree with everything you've said, and think that these comments will be a good place to start on working on this article.  Note that in the future, we highly reccomend you to Be Bold in editing pages, even if that means a 100% rewrite of the whole article.  Which is a lot of work, I know, but I think this article needs it.  If you really don't want to muck things up, make a new page at Parapsychology/Rewrite, which you can then muck about with to your hearts content and see if you have consensus that it's better than what we currently have.
:Also, to make it easier to talk to you, you can sign your comments here by putting four tildas (~~~~) after your comments, which will put your name and the date/time of your message.  If you don't have a name with us yet, it'll give us your IP address instead, which is at least an identifier we can use to seperate your comments from the comments of others. 
:If you have any questions (and believe me, I did at first too) feel free to ask.  We're mostly a friendly bunch around here. Fieari 01:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of perhaps too many chefs 

message: Currently there is somewhere around twice the amount of arguments for the skeptical POV than for the proponents POV.
Someone knowledgable about this topic needs to add one more section to the proponent's POV.
I'd do it myself, but I'm very limited in my knowledge of the subject.
:Actually, wikipedia isn't about balance.  It's about reporting facts in a dry, academic manner in a way that no one can possibly reasonably dispute.  If there are people who believe a certain thing, that is stated.  If those people are ridiculed by another group of people, that is stated.  The prevelance and relevance of a certain position means that more detail is given for more prevelant and relevant topics.
:Here's a quote from WP:NPOV:
::It may be tempting at times to 'balance' a perceivedly biased article by creating an additional article on the same subject but biased the other way. Such articles are often referred to as "POV forks". Please do not do this. Instead, consider joining discussion (or requesting comments) on the biased article to make it represent all sides fairly.
:Here's one that more specifically relates to this article, I think:
::Pseudoscience
::How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
::If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
::Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
:Furthermore, it has this to say:
::Giving "equal validity"
::"But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil."
::Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
::See this illustration of the "equal validity" issue.
:The fact that most scientists disagree with just about all the premises of Parapsychology is not bias, it's fact.  Stating it isn't bias either.
:Now, on the other hand, if there are any FACTUAL issues you believe are in the article, please bring them to light.  There are still quite a few, as the previous section on this talk page states.  Some of those factual issues, if rectified, would actually benefit the pro-psi point of view.  But the key isn't "balance", it's "fact".  Fieari 03:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You said "The fact that most scientists disagree with just about all the premises of Parasychology is not bias, it's fact".  However, in actuality, rather than being "bias" it is simply incorrect.  In the How science views the field section of this very article it lists survey information which directly contradicts what you state.  According to the references listed there, there is in fact a slight majority of scientists who consider the contents of parapsychology "an established fact or likely possibility".  An important key to achieving NPOV is to avoid describing personal guesses at how many people do or do not believe or support a thing as fact, especially when we have survey or polling information to go with.  If anything, this article suffers from a superfluous use of "many" being used as ambiguous emphasis of POV.  FRJohn 13:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, so you have a POV, which is fine, but that's not really the point here.  If you start out believing that the topics of parapsychology are nonexistent, then its very easy to conclude that "something" must be wrong with anything which disagrees with that viewpoint.  Submissions to "The Zetetic Scholar" are not sent anywhere these days, because it is no longer in print.  It was founded by Marcello Truzzi, founding co-chairman and journal editor for CSICOP, who passed away three years ago.  He formed The Zetetic Scholar in an attempt to provide a discussion on parapsychology more focused on identifying productive scientific approaches than was occurring in the CSICOP journal (and in fact, you may find the biography on his wiki article interesting).  The survey IS published and cited, however, and if you have questions about its methodology you can go to a library and look up the details of the original survey.  In addition, there are no studies cited showing that "most scientists disagree".  So it is not exactly obvious that this is a "fact", when the existing references state otherwise, so the article should not approach this as if it were a fact.  FRJohn 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Excuse me for breaking up your post into pieces here, but I wanted to respond to this separately.  Evolution would only refine ESP if ESP were genetic, and it would only be genetic if it were a component of the physical body.  Since as far as we know, the physical body does not seem to be composed of parts capable of performing the effects observed, attributing those effects to the physical body is not necessarilly a valid assumption.  Therefore, the evolution of ESP is not necessarilly a requirement for ESP to exist.  Now if you're going to add an additional assumption that there is nothing more to humanity beyond the physical (which many people like to assume for philosophical reasons), then yes, evolution would have to over time affect the effectiveness of ESP.  But if a philosophical assumption contradicts experimental observation, then perhaps it's not such a good assumption.  FRJohn 04:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, science uses statistics to deal with cases like that.  "Repeatability" is not the same thing as "consistency", because statistical tools allow us to accurately assess the effect sizes of things which only happen a certain probability of the time.  Aspirin does not always stop a heart attack, yet we know with a high confidence interval that it will stop heart attacks a small percentage of the time.  The same statistical tools apply just as well to parapsychology studies, and they allow us to assign strong confidence intervals to a systematic effect being present, even if that effect only shows up a small percentage of the time.  Therefore, it is not an anomalous "event" which is being measured, but an anomalous "effect", which is a systematic deviation between experimental variable and control variable at large numbers of repetitions.  This deviation and the number of repetitions are usually converted into a value representing the likelihood that this deviation would occur simply by chance given that number of repetitions.  These are solid and standardized statistical techniques.  For an introduction to these statistical tools with special emphasis on their use in parapsychology, read The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin.  FRJohn 04:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parapsychology needs a balance 

message: Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.
Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.
TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking expert eyes on [[Natasha Demkina]] 

message: The specific phrase in contention is "many scientists pay little heed to parapsychology".  According to Wikipedia style guide Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, phrases such as "Many people say..." lead to arguments about how many people believe a certain thing.  The solution given in the style guide is to either "name a source for the opinion" or to "change opinionated language to concrete facts".  So the solution in this case would be to either name a prominent authority who has stated that many scientists are "paying little heed" to parapsychology, or to switch to a fact and cite the results of a poll or survey of scientists regarding parapsychology, such as in the "How science views the field" section.  The style guide also emphasises that the preferred approach is to reference a source of factual information when available, to avoid the need for naming opinions.  Now if you want it to read "According to a survey by Wagner and Monnet in 1979, 55% of natural scientists and 66% of social scientists believe ESP is either an established fact or likely possibility," then we have something that can be cited as fact, and people can judge for themselves the meaning or usefulness of that fact.  But to speculate something about "many scientists" without sourcing it just violates the style guide, so lets not do that here.  Thanks.  FRJohn 21:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculations about majority attitudes require documentation 

message: Evidence, by definition, is neither supportive nor dismissive.  Evidence could show that the topics studied in parapsychology exist, and evidence could show that the topics studied in parapsychology do not exist.  Placing "claimed" in front of evidence does not provide neutrality, it simply alters the meaning of evidence, and is cautioned against in the Guidelines for controversial articles.  To remove any supposition of evidence by prerequisite being supportive, while removing the perspective of disbelief from the definition, I will modify the preposition "for" to the preposition "of".  This should yield a simple definition without us going out of our way to imply either belief or disbelief (since we should by policy do neither).  FRJohn 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjectives on "evidence" 

message: "Sadly" is an opinion that does not belong here. The remainder of the sentence was an unsupported accusation of bias - prove it if you want it back in.  In fact, as the cheering section for parapsychology loves to point out, the  American Association for the Advancement of Science has a section on it - that proves the open-mindedness of a large and influential group of scientists. There is no "East Michigan University" as mentioned on the link I deleted - there is an "Eastern Michigan University" in Ypsilanti, and Mr. Truzzi seems to have been affiliated there - but the mixup on the name of the college may be an indicator of poor quality of the other material, too.Carrionluggage 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sadly..." material 

message: I came here to remove a couple of spam links added recently, but then the spamblock wouldn;t let me save because a link was made to a site on the blocklist, and it got a huge section, so I tore that all out, plus lots of obvious spam, plus a huge whole section that came right out and said that sketpics didn;t know what they were talking about, which is obviously taking a POV stance, which is prohibited by WP:NPOV policy here. God this article is a mess. DreamGuy 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No every removal was for spam. Some things I removed in that edit were hoaxes, unverifiable info, things that didn't seem noteworthy in the context of an encyclopedia article on the topic, repetitive information, and so forth. CSICOP was moved to the skeptics section, the rest of the groups listed there did not seem notable at all, and just looked like small social websites with no encyclopedic purpose in listing them. In fact it looks to me like they were, in fact, only added for self-promotional (i.e. spam) purposes.   DreamGuy 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Psipog, veritas, and to some extent psionline(which is argueable) are some of the larger sites; at least I wouldn't consider them not notable. Granted they ARE biased, however I feel that the links section in this article should provide links to at least psipog and/or veritas, with a note that these sites are biased and should not be taken as encyclopedic resources. 
Regarding CSICOP-that makes sense, I guess, but it still seems like it would have some value in this article, as well.   24.20.237.115 19:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removed spam and some pov statements

message: I noted this in my edit history, but wanted to make it more permanent here.  I added the Wikify-cleanup tag because there are a largish number of references made in this article, where the reference is included within the prose of the paragraph itself instead of in a seperate references or notes section.  When this is taken care of, the wikify tag, at least, can be removed.  NPOV is still rampant.  Spam may still need some looking into. Fieari 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify tag 

message: Remember: NPOV does not equal "Scientific Point of View".  We report on what other people report.  We also make no value judgements.  We report when other people talk nonsense, and then report who called that nonsense.  We don't call things nonsense, we only quote others who do.  Otherwise, you're adding a POV... albiet from the other side.  Your POV is still POV, however much you'd like to think everyone should have your POV.
The article still contains almost nothing but POV statements, either for one side or the other.  Having POV statements for both sides doesn't make the article NPOV.  It makes it even more POV.
This can be solved by adding a source for EVERY STATEMENT.  I know that some people find it annoying to see references for every sentence in an article, but the more controversial your topic, the more that's going to be needed.  Don't state things.  State that other people state things instead, and provide a source for who said it! Fieari 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Reminder 

message: I'm planning on shortly performing a massive cull on this article.  Everything that isn't sourced, goes.  EVERYTHING.  Even if that means that this article becomes less informative.  I'll also keep watch and revert unsourced additions.  This article is part of wikipedia's shame, and has gone unaddressed for too long.
While culling, I'll be doing google searches on the information, to try and find a quick source.  If I don't find anything quickly, I'm just going to cut it.  Now, understand, I happen to know that most of the anti-psi information can be sourced pretty easily, at the JRE if nowhere else, and the information is easily searchable there.  Pro-psi information... is harder to find.  So the biggest losers in this cull is likely to be the pro-psi side... of which I am partially on the side of.  So I'm sending out the call now: PLEASE.  If you have any sources for pro-psi quotes and information, quotable sources, preferably searchable only, PLEASE provide them here, so there can be some balance on the page.
Note that balance and NPOV are not the same thing.  We can achieve NPOV without balance, and probably will if no one steps up with sources for their side.  NPOV is the key issue though, and I'll gladly toss balance to the wayside if we can get rid of that blasted NPOV sign at the top of the page.
So please: find sources! Fieari 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive cull: Please find sources NOW 

message: " Reportedly, as many as 46 people in the UK have doctorates in parapsychology. However, this is a myth. In fact, with the exception of Dr. Mishlove, mentioned above, the so-called "46 people in the UK" have doctorates in other disciplines, principally in psychology, but completed doctoral thesis work which included or were devoted to research projects in parapsychology. Such individuals are also expected to be competent in the disciplines in which they received their degrees. Examples of these individuals include: Dr. Susan Blackmore"  This is at least partially wrong. Blackmore's webpage says she has a PhD in Parapsychology. Need more facts on other cases. Does Edinburgh Papap....y Unit give out PhD in para........y? GangofOne 09:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments with 4 tildes. GangofOne 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  A list of successful experiments is critical; currently, it's an article about parapsychology with hardly any references to what the field has actually done.  If you do add a section on this, I will be happy to help out. Phronk 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PhDs

message: To User: 806.38.12 16 July 2006 Removed Dean Radin's statement about non-stringent psi experiments. Think about it. There is no possible way to deduce the number of non-stringent psi experiments that have been performed around the globe within the last century. How can one determine and prove the number of recorded and unrecorded ones is correct? This looks very suspicious. User:Kazuba 7 Aug 2006
: I'm not sure you understood what that paragraph was trying to say.  I took it to mean that when non-stringent experiments are removed from a meta-analysis of RECORDED experiments, the results are still highly signficant.  The number of unrecorded experiments is not relevant here, so I am not sure where that came from.  The file-drawer problem is different, and mentioned elsewhere (though someone should probably add a response from parapsychology - i.e. it would take thousands of unpublished null results to negate the positive published ones).  Radin's figure directly addressed whether a succesful meta analysis is due purely to flaws in the meta analyzed research.  I haven't added it back in, because I do agree that it was a bit poorly written.  Perhaps the original author can add the paragraph back in with greater clarity to avoid confusion. User:Phronko Aug 8 2006
```It is difficult for me to imagine devoted scientists coming forword and admitting their PSI experiments were worthless. How does one arrive at this non-stringent number so one can accurately construct mathematical odds? In fact, looking back at the past history of PSI experiments and its repeated flaws, how does one determine a stringent experiment? Personal preference? Avoid an evaluation by outside critics and conjurors, such as James Randi, Ray Hyman and others? Something here just doesn't jive. User:Kazuba 8 Aug 2006.
: Well, the great thing about science is that nobody needs to step forward and admit their experiments are worthless.  Other scientists can simply examine the published details of an experiment and judge whether it follows ever-increasing stringency requirements brought on by advances in human knowledge.  Thus, stringency is judged just like it would be in any other science, and mathematical odds are calculated according to the known laws of probability.  If one takes issue with this scientific method, then it applies equally to all sciences.  And although outside evaluation by conjurors is certainly welcome, even more important is outside evaluation by scientists .  We certainly don't need magicians in every physics lab to prevent experimenter fraud.  Again, as with any other science, peer-review is the best method we have of reaching accurate conclusions.  I think Radin's point is a good one, and should be reinserted. User:Phronko Aug 8 2006
``` I agree with you to a point. The question is when results are unusually impressive or staggering, perhaps over the 2% above chance as stated by Utts, isn't that the time peer review included very knowledgable conjurors. I am not talking about experimenter fraud; I am talking about a "non-stringent" experiment, dirty test tube, experimenter effect, or just common human error, etc. The past history of parapsychology has not been the same as that of other sciences. Conjurors??? Parapsychology seems to be quite unique. How were these mathematical figures established? If parapsychology is making great strides forward it does seem odd that Randi has not heard from Dean Radin for the last nine years. Certainly parapsychology research could use a million dollar prize. You would at least expect parapsychologists to try for it. User:Kazuba 8 Aug 2006
:::Does Randi really count as an opponent of parapsychology? I found a quote here referring to parapsychology as a "legitimate investigative science". It seems to me that he rather believes that parapsychology is a legitimate science that has been set back by bad research and experimentation. Smith Jones 02:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dirty Experiments

message: The Harvard University Press recently published:  Abducted - How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens, by
Susan A. Clancy. She concludes that the people were basically normal - i.e. not evidencing mental problems or instability.  She failed, of course, necessarily, to interview the people in Heaven's Gate (cult) who believed they were in contact with extraterrestrials, for the simple reason that they are all dead!  She did not examine people in a catatonic state or in mental hospitals or jails. So the study is questionable if not meaningless.  Tut tut, Harvard Carrionluggage 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book by Clancy as an example of "selecting data" 

message: Hi everyone...
You all know, I suppose, that a great deal of the Parapsychology page, down further than the "Status of the field" section, comes directly from http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Parapsychology, don't you?  It is a good template, maybe, but someone needs to paraphrase it.  But that doesn't include the list of Noted Parapsychologists.  I did use the laborlawtalk one as a template, but it has been altered, and links etc, so it's ours.
Martinphi 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Those who claim plausibility for psi phenomena might strive for plausible spelling. I just fixed one above ("paraphrase") but for many revisions, maybe for aeons, you have "retrocongniton" on your page.  What the blazing blazes is that supposed to be? Retrocognition has a Wiki page but, thankfully, "retrocongniton" does not.  Does it deal with trying to ignite conger eels or what?  Put in a page for it, and thus add to the merry march of the March Hares, clearly on the loose here. Carrionluggage 02:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Heeding Fieari's call for a "massive cull," I thinned up this article quite a bit by removing every nontrival, unsourced claim. If anyone wishes to readd a sentence, please have a source ready to include via <ref> tags. Simões (talk/contribs) 08:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All unsourced (and some pov) claims have been deleted. 

message: I inserted this POV-body due to recent edits.  If no one else disputes the neutrality, I do.  The skeptics do not have their say.
Simoes has :
::Some time this week I am going to reduce the article to little more than its introduction and lists of parapsychologists & critics. From there, any statement or set of statements (plus source) you wish to introduce should be first posted on the talk page where a consensus can reached. This is how things are (properly) done on the more articles (see, for example intelligent design and its talk page. Also, please keep these types of posts on the talk page of the article, not our user talk pages. This way others can participate in the discussion.
It is my belief that most or all of the material now included in the parapsychology page has been sourced.  Therefore, there is no need for further deletions, as long as the POV tag remains.
If it is true that all content should first be posted on a talk page, would you please cite a reference for this assertion?  I may be unfamiliar with the rules or customs...  
I, and I'm sure the rest of those interested in this page, reserve the right to edit the page directly.  I will keep track of my talk page and the parapsychology talk page, to see if any dispute arises.
Simoes previous deletions were done for a reason (the sources weren't good enough).  This was fine, though I at first mistook it as vandalism due to my lack of experience, which of course, may still be showing ;).  But I think further deletions need other reasons.
Please cite the rules before further extreme deletions, 
Martinphi 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made several edits to start rectifying the POV problem. Reasons are given in the edit summaries. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =NPOV-body

message: Martinphi has added nine citations to this Dean Radin book. Could someone (ideally Martinphi) add in page numbers? Without page numbers, the references are useless to someone who wants to check out the sources. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has been done, so I removed the blockquotes per WP:CITE#Page_numbers. I may go ahead and remove every other statement that cites the book as well as none have page numbers, and none are simply referring to the book itself (they refer to parts of the book). Simões (talk/contribs) 02:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page numbers 

message: Because parapsychology touches on areas of profound human ignorance such as physics...
Big problem with this part of the statement.  There are a lot of research to be done in all areas of science including physics, but humans are not profoundly ignorant of physics.  Very significant discoveries in understanging our physical world have been made in the last few centuries and we have also learned to manipulate said physical world through the results of such discoveries.  To name a few: electricity, gravity, aerodynamics, etc, etc, etc - let's not discount them all at once by stating that humans are profoundly ignorant of physics.
:I've removed that statement before, but someone readded it. Never trust the subjects of controversy to explain why they're controversial. The sentence is gone once again; thanks for pointing it out here. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parapsychology and controversy 

message: Last parapsychology edit put Bigfoot, UFO's and that Triangle as part of the paranormal but they are not on the list there. Seems to me that things like the Yeti or Sasquatch, the Bermuda Triangle, the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's (as extraterrestrial visits), abduction by aliens, cold fusion, and many more are within the possibility of scientific resolution, and some are resolved (e.g. cold fusion).  So I replaced some of these in the new discussion with items actually on the paranormal list.  Admittedly, it is all somewhat arbitrary, but let's be consistent. Carrionluggage 04:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll be dad-gummed, there is a cold fusion article that says the results are inconclusive. Seems to me Steve Koonin had laid it all to rest  but it  goes on and on. Carrionluggage 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bermuda Triangle etc