Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 6

message: There is some discussion going on at User talk:Annalisa Ventola/Sandbox about eventually switching the referencing system for this article from footnoting (WP:FOOT) to Harvard referencing (WP:HARV).  If you care either way about which system we use, you are welcome to come over and discuss it with us.  --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harvard Referencing

message: Is the version in progress in a user sandbox open for all to edit or will it be proposed here when those working on it think it is ready, seeing if there's a consensus to switch over at that point?  I'm just wondering because it hasn't had much mention on this talk page.  --Minderbinder 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be posting a notice here when it's closer to being done. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox version 

message: Reference 11 leads to a dead link. Ryz 21:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid Reference

message: Icnvalid reference number eleven anca be replaced by a number HERE that leads to several alinks that can ghe usd for wroth. Smith Jones 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid Reference #11=

message: Removed to here. --ScienceApologist 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, trying to cover up yours. --ScienceApologist 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do I need to cover up? Nothing ... J. D. Redding 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ScienceApologist action and discussion

message: In this world teeming with dictionaries, why are we settling for one without credibility? Why not use the OED or M-W? Antelan talk 13:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to put it this way, but the reason that one was chosen was because it used the words "inexplicable by science"- thus putting parapsychology outside science, and supporting the POV of the editors.  I attributed it so at least people would know.  Later I changed it to a better dictionary, which of course doesn't say what the editors in question wanted... Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALthough it is interesting to note that "inexplicable by science" is not actually true. It is an unsupported claim.  Candy 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yourdictionary.com

message: Agree. to merge Controversy in parapsychology here. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Controversy in parapsychology

message: I would like to ask editors here to take a look at the Psychokinesis page. It doesn't seem to have received nearly as much critical attention as it deserved, and seems to be somewhat heavily biased in favor of psychokinesis (I would guess it is as this one would have been if left only to favorable editors). There was some effort to show that "skeptcism" exists, but it's done in an extremely light manner ("Not all scientists and members of the scientific media accept reports of psychokinesis as being genuine phenomena"). It makes it seem like the scientific community is divided in half, really. There is also an overuse of quotes, like here, and a veritable flood of references, like here, from similar sources.
I'm afraid my interest in the subject, while not non-existent, does not justify for me the effort it would take to get involved in articles like these. This seemed like an appropriate place to ask for the attention of people already involved. AoS1014 11:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To those interested, see the Psychokinesis talk page under the heading "Bias" for further discussion on this. 5Q5 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychokinesis Page