Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:25, 6 January 2008

Skepticism Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Archive 1 - November 22, 2006 Archive 2 - February 22, 2007 Archive 3 - July 25, 2007 Archive 4 - December 1, 2007

Talk Page Archive

Archive 4 has been created with a link at above right. Archive 5, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 5" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page. There are also Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page on my personal User Page. Thank you. 5Q5 19:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference list - how it displays in IE vs Firefox and Safari

There are two types of Wiki reference section templates: {{reflist}} and {{reflist|2}}. This PK article is using {{reflist|2}}, with the "2" meaning it should display in two columns. However, on my PC using Windows XP Professional operating system with Internet Explorer 6.02.2900... browser, the list of References is displaying as a single column. This differs from a Macintosh I also have access to using OS 5.10.5.1 with both the built-in browser Safari 3.0.4 and an add-on browser Firefox 2.0.0.9. In those browsers, the list of References appears as two columns, thereby cutting its length in half. The "See also" list appears correctly in multiple columns in all three browsers. Is anyone else experiencing this single column problem in IE or might I have some setting disabled? 5Q5 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Am showing just 1 column in IE 7 on XP, too. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the template page since I think you've found a noteworthy problem here and they may want to try to fix it... Antelan 05:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this in Misplaced Pages:Footnotes: "A similar CSS class exists to create small footnotes in two columns, but this displays as a single column in some common browsers (like Internet Explorer). If desired, use <div class="references-2column"><references /></div> The same effect (with any number of columns) can be accomplished by using {{reflist|number of columns}}." (end quote) Continuing my comment: The {{reflist|2}} template doesn't work perfectly on the Firefox browser with regard to clicking on the link and then jumping down the page to the reference. With second column refs, the page on Firefox jumps down to the external links section and then you have to scroll up to find the ref, which is highlighted in light blue in both Firefox and Safari. With the {{reflist|2}} template on Mac's built-in Safari browser, everything works correctly: two columns displayed, jump-down links to refs in either column, and refs highlighted in light blue. So, to recap, with {{reflist|2}}, IE displays the refs as a single list but the links work; with Safari the refs are in two columns and the links work on both columns; and with Firefox, a significant problem exists: the refs display as two columns but the links only work on column one. 5Q5 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reflist|2 works fine on Firefox 2.0.0.10. Antelan 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See Also section

I'd like to trim down the list of links in the 'See also' section according to WP:SEEALSO. I just thought I'd make mention of this in case it raises any concerns. -Verdatum 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed the redundant links. I'm glad to say there actually weren't very many. I still have the following issues with the following links:

• Loyd Auerbach - article makes no reference to PK.
• Banachek - Article makes no reference to PK. But perhaps he could be worked into the "skeptisism and controversy" section.
• Stephen E. Braude - Hey no kidding, this guy teaches at my alma mater...But yeah, article makes no references to PK.
• Jon Ronson - I don't even see a reference to Parapsychology in this article. Why is it listed??
• Materialization - I disambiguated this term. It certainly belongs for now, but it feels like it should be mentioned in the section on subcategories of PK, after which, it can be removed.
• Nensha - It's a redirect of Thoughtography. I'll fix it within the article.
• Neural oscillations - No reference to parapsychology in the article. If it's desirable to link this term, it should probably be done within the body of the article, as opposed to the see also section. Else, it should be removed.
• Quantum mind - No mention of parapsychology in the article. Why is this listed?

Further, many of the of the articles listed only seem be be included because they are people claiming to have psychokinetic abilities. In this case, would it not be enough to just make sure those articles are listed in that category? -Verdatum (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The above look to me like they can all go. Some of them I posted way back when the article was slim. For info sake, Auerbach wrote at least two books about PK and is/was a psi wheel claimant along with his friend, the late author Martin Caidin. Auerbach is in the Further Reading section, so he's covered. Banachek (not mine) is a famous skeptic "spoon bender" and was part of Randi's Project Alpha, in which his fake PK fooled scientists. But if his article doesn't make that clear, then that's his fans fault and he should be delinked here. Ronson authored the book that told the allegedly true story of the military experimenting with using PK to kill goats. His article doesn't make that clear enough. I listed Quantum mind because it had "mind" in it. (!) I agree, the PK claimants can be moved up to the claimants section, but I don't have the time to write little bios, so that's why I stuck them in See also. They will just be names up there, which is okay with me. Maybe some editor will come along later and add something. 5Q5 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good, your insight is appreciated. Changes made. Banachek sounds potentially relavent, so I may seek out a reference and hopefully add him to the body of the article. -Verdatum (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Uri Geller Reference

I'm concerned that using What Scientists Say about Uri Geller as a source is an example of a non-Independant Source and shows bias. I realize these are legitimate quotations from legitimate professionals, but being that the reference is from his personal website, he has a conflict of interest to represent himself with a positive bias. Honestly, I don't know what should be done about this. For now, I just wanted to raise the concern, and see if anyone had any input on the matter. -Verdatum (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. The quotes by magicians on his site appear to be all sourced, while the ones on his scientist page are not. It could be argued that they have been posted on his site for a long time now and none of them (who are alive) have demanded their removal, but that's not good enough. Surely he or his brother-in-law know the sources of when these scientists said these things. These were my references. Go ahead and remove them. There are enough refs left behind so that it won't affect the material. There are probably quotes in books out there, so maybe later adequately sourced replacements will be found. 5Q5 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: Issue resolved. The references in question were removed by editor Verdatum on Dec 12, 2007 as per above discussion. 5Q5 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers in references

The numbers may be identifiable in the templates as "pages =" but in the visibly reference text in the article it is not clear what those numbers mean to the average uninformed reader. They could be page numbers. They could be some sort of publisher code, etc. Personally, I think it would be helpful to add the word "Page" in front of the number in the template: "pages = Page 1560." That would then make it clear that the quote is a quote and not a personal note by an editor. Some uninformed editor might come along in the future and alter the quote not realizing it shouldn't be changed. Remember, this is a medium where anyone can change anything, not a professional work adhering to strict standards of the publishing and academic worlds. Well, anyway, that's my helpful opinion (since I'm the one who actually sourced the quotes). If you don't agree, at least I've mentioned my concern here. I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. I'll accept it either way. 5Q5 (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Now that you mention it, I seem to recall the example template uses something like, "pages= pg. 1-5" etc. as one possibility. I'll review the style and update it first chance I get. -Verdatum (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If not out of line with the normal standard, you might also consider putting the ISBN number before the page number in the template so that the page number immediately precedes the quote. Example: | isbn = | pages = | quote = 5Q5 (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the order, (I believe) I'm just following the order as presented in Template:cite book (or related templates). I don't claim to be a template design guru, so I'm not really certain about the methodolgy behind the specified order of arguments. I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but I'd like to do a bit more research. I do see your point, as it more closely relates the page number to the quotation. I'm also under the impression that flipping the order of arguments will have no effect on the order presented by the template, but I've never bothered to test this assumption. -Verdatum (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a test, rearranging the template elements as I proposed above and no-go, Wiki ignores placing the page number after the ISBN and before the quote. I now propose, and have successfully tested at least adding the word "page" in front of the number. Example, try this test on ref #1: | pages = page 1560. That works and will clearly identfy the number as a page and associate it with the quote. If you agree and don't have the time, I can go through the list and make the additions. 5Q5 (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. According to Template:Cite book it uses the syntax of "pp. x-y". I'll start fixing them now. -Verdatum (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

K, fixed -Verdatum (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

On ref 7, this error message is showing up in red instead: "random number generator.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title." It shows up in a PC and on a Mac. Also, regarding the numbers "p" is page and "pp" is pages. 5Q5 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Problematic references

I have a huge problem with a lot of the references that are sourcing some of the more outlandish claims in this article. First of all, referencing the "parapsychological association" should be done only to give the PA's perspective: it can not be done to reference a fact. Secondly, the book on "Controversial Science" has an author who is research director of the Institute for Parapsychology, hardly a reliable source for a fringe subject. We're going to have to find second- and third-party sources in order to make such bold claims. I am going to leave this notice up for a bit and then I'll begin to cull sources and remove content that is poorly referenced and in violation of neutrality. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC) _{Subscript text}

I agree, there are some problems, and your arguments on policy seem sound, but I don't like to speak generically. Perhaps you should consider tagging the offending sections with Template:Fact, Template:ww, or similar inline tag. Or perhaps bring up or justify any specific potentially controvercial changes here. I suspect that some of the problems are in the wording of the claim, and some in the quality of the reference. Mostly, I'm concerned about wasted effort if your changes don't meet concensus; but I'm excited to see what you think should change. Either way, I'll keep my eye on the diffs. It's fun to see this page evolve :) -Verdatum (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifics would help. I already disagree with dismissing the PA and as unreliable outright. It's a long article. I would need to know which sections you think are misrepresented as fact. --Nealparr 06:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can only second Verdatum and Nealparr. I'm not sure what ScienceApologist has in mind. Also, in an article on a subject such as psychokinesis, the PA is the professional association of scientists who study such claims. As Verdatum says, it would be better to suggest changes on the talk page before inserting them, I think, since this is such a controversial article. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but since there is kinesis in the term, physicists would be eminently qualified to comment. That they have not is quite telling, and per WP policy, and more importantly, per common sense, this is an absence of support by the majority viewpoint within the scientific community. It should be made more clear which claims have any support by the broader community and which are pop culture. Not that the pop culture needs to be removed at all, just that the demarcation should be made clear. Antelan 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, this line of argument is covered by WP:FRINGE. There's nothing wrong with a topic that declares that it falls outside the relm of modern accepted physics. There's really no need to use arguments to push one POV over another here. Sticking to the reporting of documented facts and properly representing them allows this article to be brought closer to neutrality. I fail to see how the pop culture aspects enter into it, as far as I can tell that is not the issue of this line of discussion. If you see spots where references from the relm of fiction are potentially being misrepresented as being nonfiction, you may want to point them out in a separate topic, or fix them yourself and see if these fixes are retained. -Verdatum (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Verdatum, it sounds like you are describing a protoscience, not a pseudoscience. This isn't string theory, where people are building careers on trying to figure out how to make the theory testable. If this topic wants to be outside of the realm of physics, it should stay away from invoking science, except to say that it is not a scientific topic. As such, it will be a cultural, not scientific, article. Antelan 20:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read WP:FRINGE you'll note it makes no reference to psuedoscience or protoscience. The idea that psychokinesis can work in the real world is a fringe theory, and it should follow the guidelines specified in that article. WP:FRINGE does not have any such rule that if a topic wants to be outside of the realm of physics, it should stay away from invoking science. If you can find such a policy or guideline, please reference it here for my information. Thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Split the article - PK (parapsychology) and PK (fiction)?

It might solve a lot of problems, I think, if the article could be split: "Psychokinesis (Parapsychology)" and "Psychokinesis (fiction)." Right now, as a single entry, it is trying to serve the needs of both audiences. It would be a shame to lose all those references that could be helpful to a future fiction-related article. Maybe one of you might consider pursuing even a starter article to move items over there? Just a thought. 5Q5 (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with 5Q5 on that. You could fill up an entire article with comic book lore and never even get around to covering the books and movies, much less parapsychology. I vote split. --Nealparr 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a complicated issue. Psychokinesis in fiction is a collection of disjoint and anecdotal references. It's difficult to write and maintain an article on such a topic that doesn't degrade into "listcruft" and WP:PLOT issues. Psychokinesis in popular culture apparently was a previous article that got deleted by AFD. Still, if someone wants to try and create such an article with a proper lead section explaining it's scope, I doubt anyone will have any serious problem with such a split. -Verdatum (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples: Force field (science fiction), Portal (fiction), Hyperspace (science fiction), Parallel universe (fiction), Reboot (fiction), Stasis (fiction). I did a quick wiki search for "(fiction)." There are undoubtedly more. 5Q5 (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts. The creation of a new article "Psychokinesis (fiction)" would be useful for the various fan communities (comic books, movies, TV, games, etc.), and anyone is welcome to create such an article. We could put a main article link here at the pop culture section. What I'm having second thoughts about is that I don't understand what is in the PK article now that is not a serious, nonentertainment treatment of the subject. ScienceApologist has the opinion that there are outlandish claims in the article. I must remind everyone that this article at page bottom is locked in the Pseudoscience category. If this were in the Physics category, I could go along with that, certainly. All the sections look okay to me as far as having pro and opposing viewpoints covered; that is except for "Types of abilities." It could use a referenced opposing viewpoint to make it neutral. After I post this, I will add something to the intro there. By the way, the reason I've included quotes in my refs is not to clog up the article, but to help authenticate them. Keep in mind, this is a topic involving a history of hoaxes on both sides. Trust no one... 5Q5 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories are a useful tool for the reader, and do not function as disclaimers. Antelan 20:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Since parapsychology is also fiction, I see no need for that... Guy (Help!) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• To do so would really be begging the question. Antelan 19:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality check banner - remove or keep?

This article has been flagged continuously with a NPOV check banner since and by "17:36, 23 May 2007 AoS1014 (Talk) | (contribs) (55,471 bytes) (POV-check tag) (undo)." The editor who flagged it has not contributed to the article or discussion since May 26, 2007 and has not even logged in to Misplaced Pages since June 2007. Anyone else feel it's time to remove the banner? If someone adds a new section, then its return could be reevaluated at that time. I vote to remove. 5Q5 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't right to just keep tags around that long when an article has changed so much. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

i vote to KEEP. Parpsychology and related dissident sciences are in a state of seige from the "mainstream" etablishment both here and around thw world, and the tag is the only marker of viiglance against bias and evidence distortion on wikipedia. Smith Jones (talk)

I think it's wrong even as just an issue of appearance to have a controversial article indefinitely flagged. As I write this, there are no flags currently on parapsychology, telepathy, Uri Geller, or James Randi, but at various times I'm sure there were. 5Q5 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

YOU'RE RIGHT I MISSED A FEW Smith Jones (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics