Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ConfuciusOrnis (talk | contribs) at 23:09, 19 August 2007 (POV pushing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:ParanormalAnteniSmile

This user is a member of WikiProject ReallyRational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with sciences, protosciences, pseudosciences and skepticism. An unverified truth is a lie.

at the bottom of the page

I'm currently cutting down my participation in Misplaced Pages, but I may be around once in a while.

Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your many excellent contributions to the parapsychology article as well as your many contributions to the area as a whole. - Solar 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your outstanding, never-say-die contributions to Paranormal articles everywhere! Dreadstar † 08:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		This Barnstar is hereby awarded for your assistance in bringing the parapsychology article to Good Article status. Nealparr 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good is great! --Nealparr 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Righteous Psi-Beeyatch Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Solid Gold Beeyatch Star Barnstar for being a Righteous Psi-Beeyatch about it. Awarded for your work on Paranormal articles by fellow psi-beeyatch Dreadstar † 20:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC) *Psi Beeyatch: term referring to the process of being a beeyatch, without suggesting how the beeyatchness is caused or experienced

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thank you for your "Purportedly Paranormal" efforts! :) Caleb Murdock 01:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Using quotes and "purported"

I'm sorry to be suddenly disagreeing with you, but I do feel that there is a place for qualifications of controversial concepts and assertions. Thus, when I originally had the word "channelled" in quotes in the Jane Roberts article, I think the quotes were needed. Here is the sentence:

Jane Roberts (1929 – 1984) was an American author, psychic and trance medium or spirit medium who "channelled" a personality named Seth.

Without the quotes, we are saying that channelling is a fact. I believe it is, but for purposes of an encyclopedia, we need to qualify that concept.

I also feel that there are times when "purported" is needed -- again, to qualifying a controversial concept or assertion. Thus:

She also purportedly channelled other personalities, including the philosopher William James and the painter Paul Cézanne, both deceased.

By the way, why did you remove that sentence from the article?--Caleb Murdock 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the recent ArbCom, when we say words like "channelled" we don't really imply that it is real or not. Rather, it is a cultural artefact, and as long as the channelling article contains skepticism, we're OK just using the word. The reader will know that the paranormality of channelling is disputed.

"Purported" was also addressed by the ArbCom. But I took that whole sentence out because it doesn't seem to be mentioned again in the article, and we're supposed to be summarizing the article.

It's really worthwhile to read the ArbCom. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the whole ArbCom thing through twice, so I understood all the points. I actually found it quite interesting, though some things confused me, such as the way a point would be restated several times in different ways.

From the perspective of someone who believes in channelling, I still think that for an encyclopedia to state it as a fact without some kind of qualification is very poor form for an encyclopedia. I'm most concerned that the encyclopedia maintain the same objective and professional standards that other encyclopedias do.

Despite the arbitration, the word "purported" has its uses. I think the point of the arbitration was to get the skeptics to stop dropping the word before every noun they didn't like.

About the sentence you deleted, are you saying that something can't be stated in the opening paragraph if it isn't expounded on later in the article? I don't really understand that. It seems to me that the opening paragraph of an article is an introduction more than it is a summary.--Caleb Murdock 03:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just found a spot for that sentence at the bottom of the article.--Caleb Murdock 03:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2 regards contributing to an arbitration discussion. --DashaKat 22:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comments from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2, as the first is an arbitration that occured in 2004. I was under the impression that they were concurrent.

Also, you might want to check the edit...I screwed up you signature, and don't know how to make it right. --DashaKat 16:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ganzfeld experiment

Re your edit to the PK article intro, the Ganzfeld experiment is 100% telepathy/rv related isn't it? The article there even calls it the "Gansfeld telepathy experiment." I don't see the connection to PK. The RNG lab experiments I think are the lab evidence for PK (controversial though they may be) and the more famous outside-of-lab evidence are the spontaneous and metal phenomena cases. I'd like to ask you reconsider your edit. Thanks. 5Q5 18:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right! Total brain fart (I reverted it). Although in defense, there is a lot of talk that psychokinesis and telepathy et al are actually the same thing. Still, the spontaneous stuff is not convincing, at least in the current scientific culture, and I think they might put more emphasis on RNG data. Don't you think? –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I took your excellent link and used it as a reference, revising the intro line in question at PK. There is a lot of published documentation on spontaneous PK; in the past sometimes called poltergeist cases. 5Q5 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Psychic surgery, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. ornis (t) 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Non-article Rational Skepticism pages