Talk:Telekinesis/Archive 3

message: Archive 2 has been created with a link at above right. Archive 3, when needed in the future, should be a new page (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive_3" and the link added to the template on this page's code. Some of the prior talk pages (notably Archive 1) may also have used the refactoring method of talk page management. To view other archived talk pages follow these steps: 1. Click on the "History" tab at the top of this page. 2. Click on any date that you wish. That's all you have to do. You will be taken to Wiki's archived talk page for that date. To find the very first talk pages, click on the "Earliest" link at the bottom of the "History" page and scroll down to the links at the bottom of the page. Permission is granted to copy this notice for use on other Talk pages. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Thank you. 5Q5 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also created Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page on my User Page. 5Q5 18:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Page Archive

message: When discussing quoted material from the PK article, you can place it in a light green colored box by copying and pasting the code below.
Put copied and pasted quoted text here.
 
Another method is to just indent one space on the talk page. Include line breaks or it will run as one long line off the page to the right. 5Q5 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A few editing tips for use on this psychokinesis talk page

message: An editor rightly removed the wiki link for "tactile telekinesis" that had been at the top of the See also section for a long time because it now just redirects to the PK article. It looks like tactile telekinesis (one way of explaining Superman's and Supergirl's powers) has been deleted by someone for some reason as a wiki article. It can still be found on Google .  for at least awhile. 5Q5 15:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tactile telekinesis - article disappeared from Wikipedia?

message: This article has little info on for or against psychokinesis. It'd be nice to know the validity of it somewhat :) Genjix 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has yet had the ambition take on the work of sourcing such a section.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can click on "Other Languages" on the left sidebar on the main article and see what's on foreign language wiki pages for PK; albeit in a foreign language. 5Q5 20:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor article

message: Editor  Sparsefarce on 19:47, 27 February 2007 deleted the "Grammatical forms" section from Terminology without discussion calling it a "silly section which belongs in a dictionary." The sections been in the article for months without complaint. Any agreement or disagreement on this action. I authored it, but will go with the majority. The article is slim and it was filler material. 5Q5 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section might be usefull to someone.  I would say, keep it for now.  True, this is not a dictionary.  I would however think that anyone with the ambition to do as much research as has obviously been done for this article would have a full discussion of the scientific results surrounding this phenomenon. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatical forms section removed by editor - discussion requested

message: Under "Belief in Telekinesis", there is only a single poll's result. Can this section be filled in a bit more? Also, is there information on where the poll was conducted and the ages, etc. of participants? (Telephone polls should not be the only source of data added, as they are self-filtering; most people when called at home do not choose to take them.) Noclevername 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The published survey is available by following the reference number to the link. I wrote a longer section once (see above). Someone else can try again. 5Q5 18:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionnaire

message: NEEDS MONITORING: A vandal with the IP 203.115.128.72 redirected the words telekinesis and telekinetic to the article for a Filipino model and TV host Mariel Rodriguez. I was able to fix the redirects.  If it happens again, here are the pages where the codes for the redirects can be fixed: Telekinesis
Telekinetic. 5Q5 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal redirecting telekinesis and telekinetic to a performer's article

message: I flagged the line in the box below with a "citation needed" because it stands out as too negative as worded and comments like this should go in a separate—referenced— "Skepticism," "Controversy," or "Criticism" section, if someone wants to do that. Other articles have such sections. The article for telepathy has a "Skepticism and controversy" section. The line below could be added to every science article on Wikipedia. There will always be some person or group who doesn't accept something (just ask the hollow earth people). Also the line needs revising. Technically, a skeptic Joe Nickell report on a hoax could be accurate. Maybe a better line would be, in a new "Criticism" section: "Not all scientists accept reports of PK as being genuine phenomena." I'd want to see a specific reference for that; not a reference about the paranormal in general. In accordance with Wiki policy, if no citation can be found after a reasonable time, I propose deleting the line below. The issue is discussed here and can be worked on again at a later date if that happens. 5Q5 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do some research and if I can find an appropriate reference for "Not all scientists accept reports of PK as being genuine phenomena," I'll add it to a new skepticism and controversy section. We'll see. UPDATE: I'm researching, referencing, and drafting a major new section titled "Skepticism and controversy" for the article (the telepathy article has a similarly titled section, authored by others). Should be ready soon. I wrote and referenced over 95% of the current PK article (then tweaked by you all), so if you like my work, more of the same. 5Q5 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Negatives belong in a Skepticism, Contoversy, or Criticism section - discussion

message: The editor, Android Mouse, 
who placed a trivia flag on the Cultural references section. Take a look at his contributions log. His sole function on Wikipedia seems to be doing this (hundreds of articles so far). It's his personal mission. He only recently registered at Wikipedia, and he's sending out his created program "bot" all over Wikipedia to automatically flag articles with "trivia." No offense, but... Amazing. I hope hundreds of editors complain to have this stopped.   5Q5 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks like the sentences could be strung together without much work. I'll get to work on it. Probably the trivia harassment bot (my opinion) is alerted to the list elements as well. A paragraph probably won't stop unnecessary movie/TV/game additions here instead of the main list where they belong, so that will continue to be a problem. I haven't seen the flag on the main Cult. Ref. list yet. That page actually has a "Trivia" section. 5Q5 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia tag??

message: This article has a huge criticism and controversy section, and little or no discussion of the data which causes some to believe in the phenomenon.  Either the criticism section needs to be reduced to a small paragraph or two, or the article needs to include a discussion of the data, in order to avoid undue weight concerns. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently revising the Skepticism-Controversy section I wrote and adding subtitled sections to make it easier to read. My feeling is that when dealing with such a controversial subject, it is better to quote verbatim the leaders of the debate than for me to try to add my interpretation of their positions. I will include your edits (deletion of link to parapsychology discussion, but not the laws of physics citation tag--I found an appropriate reference). I hope to post it tomorrow morning. 5Q5 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  Yeah, that's been my approach in the past, to use quotes, for the same reason. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced

message: I'd like to propose revising this line in the article's intro authored by editor Martinphi. If there is no objection or other suggestions, I will do so next week. 5Q5 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change, but tweaked the last part to: "is real or deserving of further study based on eyewitness reports involving hard-to-reproduce spontaneous phenomena.  Psychokinesis is a popular ability in entertainment movies, written fiction, and computers games." 5Q5 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to change line in intro

message: Ok, why is this article named Pyschokinesis? The naming conventions for wikipedia state:
    
Furthermore, using the Google Test as shown on the wikipedia naming conflict convention garners almost 3 times the results for telekinesis as psychokinesis (627,000 as opposed to 210,000) and  searching wikipedia with google finds an even larger discrepancy, (917 TK vs 285 PK). Last but not least, Telekinesis as a term was created before Psychokinesis. So, considering that this is at best a field of study with dubious verifiability in real life, why choose the only-slightly newer, less used and most importantly less identifiable term over the better known? Again, to quote the naming convention "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists". To me, thats telekinesis over psychokinesis to a margin of three to one. WookMuff 00:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree Wholeheartedly LSWSjr 09:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to disagree. I raised this issue a long time ago (in favor of it being renamed Telekinesis) and I'm the one who did the Google comparison search. (The discussion is buried in the History list, not the archive unfortunately). Anyway, I've changed my mind since doing more research. TK, as the article indicates, is a speciality of PK. TK is (currently) the more popular term only due to the American entertainment industry. In some foreign Wiki articles, TK is the dominant term.I would like to point out that heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction. I do, however, find myself typing in "telekinesis" in the search box whenever I want to locate the PK article because it's a less confusingly spelled word (note how the originator of this discussion section mispelled "Psychokinesis"). In short, I think all is okay the way it is. 5Q5 18:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telekinesis vs. Pyschokinesis 

message: The article on Psychokinesis is overly neutral and somewhat favorable to the alleged phenomenon.  I emphasize the word "alleged" very strongly.  All encyclopedia articles are meant to convey facts and information in an objective manner.  Above all, they are meant to reflect accurately the findings of science and academia.  This article falls short of that.  The bottom line is psychokinesis has yet to be verfied by any authentic, objective scientific study.  Therefore, it is still in the realm of fantasy and should be treated as such by an encyclopedia.  Psychokinesis and other paranormal claims should be prefaced by the words "alleged" or "supposed" or other qualifying words.  They should not be written about as actual, established theories or facts.  I definitely support maintaining the flag for questioning this article's neutrality until the language of the article is changed to reflect scientific accuracy.  Kevin Scott Marcus 05:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overly neutral? I've not heard that one before. The opening paragraph to the article states: "The position of most skeptics of the paranormal is that psychokinesis does not exist in the real world, but only appears to exist due to fraud or statistical manipulation of scientific data, while parapsychologists say that the ability is real or deserving of further study based on eyewitness reports involving hard-to-reproduce spontaneous phenomena. Psychokinesis is a popular ability in entertainment movies, written fiction, and computer games." It's the spontaneous cases and non-laboratory reports by credible observers like Michael Crichton that perhaps give it a slightly pro stance, but only in the speciality descibed (metal softening phenomena). In some places, the article's real-world and entertainment elements are for now unavoidably mixed together. I'm a long-time member of a skeptics organization in the U.S. As the primary author of the article, I've tried to be fair to both sides. I might believe there is evidence for metal softening, but certainly not human levitation or phasing through matter. I won't personally censor the article for the sake of excessive skepticism. The article has come a long way and is a work in progess. I have no problem with it being permanently flagged with a neutrality monitor banner. 5Q5 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Too much NPOV? :) Errorneous 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor is referring to Neutral point of view (NPOV), the Wikipedia goal for articles. I also wanted to add that I am always on the lookout for recent position statements regarding PK/TK. 5Q5 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Uncritical