Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 9

message: Seems fair to me, but I would not change the definition to Martinphi's version ever. First off, you left out the last part detailing examples. Second, his revision makes it imprecise. No need to point out in the definition that only some types of paranormal phenomena are under the field's purview, as this is detailed later on. Keeping the definition extremely basic is important, for the first sentence anyway. First you establish that is the attempt to find evidence for paranormal activity, then expand in the next sentences to define what activities in particular. Besides, saying that the concrete definition includes and has only ever included these certain types of paranormal phenomena is false. The types of paranormal activity that parapsychology has studied has changed over time, and will empirically continue to do so. VanTucky 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What what changes should I make exactly? Wikidudeman (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the current definition (in your sandbox version). However, I find it odd that not once is the word pseudoscience mentioned, as many critics within the scientific community would seem to label it as such. Per the idea of the merge with Controversy, we either need to add in the entire section detailing those critcis opinion of it as pseudoscience, or at least, the part in the introduction might say: ...fringe science at best, and patent pseudoscience at worst... VanTucky 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give us some scientific RS sources for that? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might check out the multiple reliable sources in the Controversy in parapsychology Pseudoscience section. But if you aren't satisfied by those, there is this, this, and this. VanTucky 02:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It does say "The methods of parapsychologists are regarded by some critics as a pseudoscience." Wikidudeman (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that it is pseudoscience is included in the article. I made sure of that in the draft we installed earlier, per ArbCom discussions. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying you're lying, but just thinking structurally, what section is it in? Criticisms? VanTucky 03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. Have you read the new article?
Click here for the rough draft.  Wikidudeman (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually a section devoted just to that topic, outside the rest of the criticism (first under the main criticism header) because it's a big one. It's the "Controversy over scientific status". The rest of the article including the intro are softer versions of the same idea, whether or not it is science. Big discussion in the ArbCom about it, so took special care in writing that. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's please stop arguing. VanTucky, I haven't seen any actual specific criticisms of the article concerning what should be added or removed. Please be a little clearer about what you would like to see changed and remember to be specific. As noted above, it is mentioned in the criticism area that some scientists consider parapsychology a pseudo science. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, there's no reason to get into a big discussion of the various sides of the topic -- all over again. The phrase "fringe science at best" is already a negative statement. Adding "patent pseudoscience at worst" would be a double negative statement. The former is a "diplomatic negative". The latter is a pejorative negative, so much so that Wikipedia has special guidelines for its use.  There's negative statements all throughout the article and at some point the repetition compromises readability. The draft covers all notable ideas about the topic, diplomatically. Maybe it is the time to just agree to disagree on small points. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made some suggested changes in a draft here.  However, I think I may be wrong with the edits on the Ganzfeld section, so bear that in mind. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are too many changes there Martin. Please introduce 1 at a time and explain your reasoning for wanting the change so that we can all consider it together. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the changes are obvious, and I made it into a lot of small edits so you could just go through the diffs.  Since most of the changes are just copy edits, I can wait till the article is inserted if you wish, but I'm trying to go with your plan.  Why would I, for instance, have to explain that Britain is not in Europe?  Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well post them all here. Britain isn't part of Continental Europe however I believe it's considered still part of Europe. Maybe someone could correct me. However, Please post all of the changes including copy edits here that you think should be made, except one at a time. I think we should stick to that plan. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: They could also be removed on the grounds that they're just ad hom remarks, not addressed to any particular concern. Antelan talk 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, is there any reason that the link to the now-defunct UNLV parapsych chair was removed but the PEAR link was not? I think they could both remain. On the other hand, the Perrott-Warrick link should be taken down, as it's dead. Antelan talk 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are intimidated to where they don't want to mess with the links right now. WDM, if you can change it in your draft, I'll remove it from the live page. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the UNLV External link: "* Bigelow Chair of Consciousness Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), now defunct." Antelan talk 02:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VanTucky's suggestions

message: *WDM, in the Criticism section, please move the 'Fraud' heading and material up so that it is the first thing under the Criticism lead. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 15:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Except I made it the 2nd to last paragraph in that section which flows better IMO. Tell me what you think. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're asking. What "Bio" pic? The one at the top of James Randi? It's not the best picture in the world and it's quite wide. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you copy between the   above, it will replace the book image with the picture that is in the live version Parapsychology#Fraud. It was argued that we shouldn't be hawking his book. I'm inclined to agree. The book image shouldn't be used outside of his own article or an article about the book itself. It's my bad. I'm the one who put it in there originally not thinking about all of that. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Anything else? Wikidudeman (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That was my goof. Since I'm focused on overall feel, I'm fine until we get to the intro. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's work on the intro then. Remember, One sentence or segment at a time, What do you think should be changed? Wikidudeman (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Annalisa had more and there's one you missed. I bulleted each one, to minimize confusion. On the intro, I actually wanted to get some feedback from everyone. That's why I started the "Draft intro" section above. VanTucky offered a version but I was hoping some others would as well when they get a chance. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did have more.  See above.  I'm wondering if it might be best to move the discussion to the talk page of WDM's draft until its ready to be installed? --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be up to WDM, but I think it's best. Easy to get confused over here. Over there (draft talk page) he can respond to bulleted one line changes without having to wade through everything. I'm fine with that as long as a notice is placed over here before anything gets installed. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, Give some suggestions on the talk page of my draft. Because I really don't know which suggestions I missed that you're referring to. I'll take suggestions both here and on the talk page of the draft as well. Remember though, One suggestion at a time so that we can get consensus on it. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've moved my unaddressed point to the talk page of your draft. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Thing at a Time 

message: I'm posting this again so that everyone can get a chance to add any advice for the rough draft before we decide to replace it. Any updates that have been made to this article could also be added if anyone things they should be made. Here's the current rough draft:
Click here for the rough draft. 
You can leave comments here or on the talk page of the Rough draft, either is fine. Please make sure to leave only 1 comment at a time or 1 suggestion at a time. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try to keep User_talk:Wikidudeman/Parapsychology clean by marking each request with a 1), 2), 3) and so on and creating a new discussion section for each number as needed. That will keep the discussions away from the actual numbered requests so we don't get lost. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything else redux?