Talk:Telekinesis/Archive 4

Talk Page Archive

Archive 3 has been created with a link at above right. Archive 4, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive_4" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia: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)

List of cultural references to PK and TK was deleted

I have just learned, after the fact, that the above useful research list has been deleted from Wikipedia forever. The article, history log, and talk page with pending titles: all gone. Here is the timeline of events as best as I can determine: On Tuesday July 24, 2007 a Wikipedia administrator by the user name of Eyrian (Contribs) flagged the article with a delete nomination banner (this editor does this to a lot of list articles). Voting took place here and on Sunday July 29, 2007, the article was deleted. It would have been nice if someone had notified us editors on this main PK article from which the list linked. If you're thinking you can always find the list at the Internet Archive, no, I checked, it's not there. Right now, the only place you can find it is in Google's temporary cache of the page. I would urge everyone to copy the page from there quickly before it disappears... If anyone ever wants to volunteer to create and manage a web page with the list, be sure to add it to the external links section. 5Q5 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some admins who will undelete the page if you ask them, but only for your own use. It won't stay on wikipedia forever. This page should help you. Totnesmartin 14:48, 30 July 2007

Thanks for the info, just the type of helpful input I was looking for; though realistically I don't think they would put the List back up, but it's very useful to know there is a dispute process. I've saved the code from Google's cache. 5Q5 18:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

they'd do it if you just wanted to save the information on your own computer, but it would be deleted again soon. Having said that, Unexplained disappearances was resurrected from deletion, and is still around today - but only because a gang of editors worked hard to make massive improvements. Totnesmartin 19:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be a purge of "in popular culture" articles going on currently; but then the quality of most of them is awful, just huge lists of the topic being mentioned in videogames and sitcoms. Totnesmartin 14:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Update - The lengthy PK/TK Cultural References List is now gone from Google, but don't worry, all that hard work by Wiki editors has been saved and will likely reappear on the Internet again someday, possibly as an addition to this Hollywood PK/TK Movie List, which was a "See also" link on that page. 5Q5 13:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What a mess...

Note: The article has subsequently undergone a revision that addressed some of the concerns discussed in the posts below.

This article is horrific. Anyone reading this please comment immediately so that we can start improving it. Please add some input. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume your insults are directed at me, the only person over the past year who has taken the time to go to libraries, spend hours doing fact-finding research, make pages of handwritten notes, compile reference information, and contribute whole sections to the article, which were then tweaked by many others. The article has evolved into the number one spot in Google's ranking for psychokinesis. Is it finished? Is it perfect? No. No. Wikipedia is a thankless, unpaid hobby. I have actual professional nonfiction literary credentials in real life (author of books). Do you? There are always drivers of bulldozers who think they know better. The article is full of useful information. It will continue to develop over time. Again, thanks for starting off the discussion by insulting those who have gone out and done the legwork. I sprained my back the other day, so I'm not in a happy place as I write this. 5Q5 14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

5Q5, No one's insulting anyone. I'm stating a simple fact. This article is in "horrific" condition. That's a simple fact. If you're insulted by me telling the truth about an article then I can't help that. The lead is too small, The references are for the most part unformatted, Most of the skepticism section seems to be strawman arguments and quotes at that. The article is not neutral from my reading of it. These are simple facts. Now you can take my criticism of the article as personal insults directed at you or you can take my criticism as it is and help me improve the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just the sort of thing we'd expect from someone who wants to become an Admin, WDM. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking the truth? I agree. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Horrific," adjective. 1. grossly offensive to decency or morality; causing horror. 2. causing fear or dread or terror. Source: Princeton University via dictionary.com. Anyone who's been following this page long enough knows that nearly every addition is flagged for a citation required. It's an "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" topic, so even the references go the extra step to make sure they're believable by adding the quoted material that proves they aren't being hoaxed. PK exists also as a legitimate topic in fiction. Skeptics rarely write about psychokinesis except to say short disparing things about other researcher's work. I challenge you to find something meaningful and then add it. Go ahead. Find a better quote about psychokinesis by Sagan, Shermer, and Randi. By the way, I'm a long-time published member of a skeptics organization. You should have seen the page when I arrived. Thanks.5Q5 22:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well by "Horrific" I mean dreadful or fearful. Dreadful and fearful because I dread having to shift through it to make the relevant improvments. You seem to be under the impression that a lot of quotes is a good thing, however this isn't the case. Too many large quotes in an article is actually a bad thing and they should be paraphrased and shortened so as to not directly quote the individuals. As far as writing things, I will be improving this article in a short while once I'm doing with what I'm currently doing. I'm not disparaging you, I'm simply stating my opinion of the article itself. Please don't take it the wrong way. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the excess appears to be in the Skepticism and controversy section, especially the lengthy ones by Brougham. I put those quotes there, so let me have a crack at thinning them out. 5Q5 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Try to avoid direct quotes and simply paraphrase them in your own words, saying what they say but not directly quoting them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please try not to give orders. You started this off badly enough. For instance, you could have said "I suggest we avoid direct quotes and simply paraphrase..." ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I didn't start anything of badly.

2. It wasn't an order. It was a suggestion.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[1]. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always seen her as somewhat stuck up and her advice quite unrealistic. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Manners is a continuum. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

From 5Q5: Okay, I have a major revision ready and will put it in tomorrow. I did recognize that I got carried away with the quotes. I guess I just didn't have the time to compose something longer. I think I successfully removed seven quote blocks; instead, offering a description and then moving the quote to a reference to back it up. That way, I'm not actually deleting anything from the article, just making it more concise in the main body. However, I am leaving in the quotes by Shermer, Randi, Sagan, Crichton, and Radin because those guys are at the top of the controversy and I think it's important to read their own words verbatim. 5Q5 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good (: ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes. I've moved all the quotes I'm going to. If you see opportunities for tweaking, no problem. A fresh set of eyes always helps. 5Q5 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sonic the hedgehog

Does sonic the hedgehog really need to be added to the See also bit? seems kind of unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.206.237 (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it (it was Silver the Hedgehog, not Sonic). Thanks for spotting it. "See also" is not for fictional entries; otherwise, there could be hundreds listed. Whoever included it should submit it, if PK related, to the webmaster of the offsite Cultural References List in the External Links. 5Q5 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category label

I'm not in favor of this article being tagged at the bottom with the "Pseudoscience" label, but since the word is mentioned in the article in the quote (which I placed) by Carl Sagan, I guess that might technically qualify as justification. This article was given the label once before and an editor removed it. "Pseudoscience" is an invented point-of-view insult term with a long history of use by certain types of skeptics. I am a long-time member of a skeptics organization and I would never use it as such. The study of psychokinesis is included in parapsychology, which is a recognized science. If any editor feels more strongly about the label's affect on the article and wants to do a vote here to Keep or Remove, I would certainly add my vote to remove. 5Q5 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put in some findings of fact here on that topic, in case you want to add anything further in this ArbCom. Otherwise, I doubt there is anything you can do about it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "pseudoscience" is a useful term when describing things like astrology and the reading of tea leaves, but PK is not like those, as those are not legitimate research subjects of parapsychology, a recognized science (recognized as a legitimate science even by James Randi: "parapsychology, a legitimate investigative science" -- James Randi, Swift commentary, Sep 19, 2003 / Google that quote). PK could fall into the category of being a fringe science, also a category on Wikipedia, but not yet a protoscience. Amateurs do PK research, so have scientists, even for the U.S. government. Amateurs do experiments in electricity and magnetism, yet no one labels those a pseudoscience to cover the amateur participation. I think you're right, though, about the category label sticking to this article. I don't think it's accurate though. 5Q5 15:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And why don't any of my fellow skeptics organziation members here on Wikipedia put the pseudoscience category label at the bottom of the Theoretical physics article? That article includes the word "pseudoscience" (scroll down to fringe theories section) in the context of some theories falling into that group. Could it be that I'm right; it's being used selectively by hard-liners to denigrate certain topics and not applied fairly to all? This will be my last comment on this. The PK article is so large that I don't think people notice the bottom categories anyway. 5Q5 16:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The pseudoscience label is applied to topics which are considered pseudoscientific or have aspects that are pseudoscientific. Just including the word itself in the article isn't all that illuminating for categorization. ScienceApologist 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone reupload the Medusa Touch movie poster to Wiki?

The movie poster The Medusa Touch was deleted in the past 24 hours from this PK article and The Medusa Touch (film) by a Wikibot created by a student editor named Betacommand. The individual who originally uploaded it to Wikipedia earlier this year was an editor named Films addicted. Apparently the fair use rationale template was not filled out properly and a bot detected it and deleted the image along with a long list of other movie posters uploaded by Films addicted. Movie posters qualify for fair use because they are used in connection with criticism (noncommercial discussion) of the movie and other movie articles have them. I am not familiar with the image uploading/template side of Wikipedia and Films addicted hasn't done any editing in months. Is there an editor who can properly reupload the movie poster and fill in the template so we can get it back in this article? This does not appear to be vandalism, just a Wikibot detecting incomplete information in a template. Here is where you can find the image: http://www.answers.com/topic/49244-1020-a-jpg (that is a web page, not just the file location). If we can't get The Medusa Touch back, I'll have to go with the poster for Phenomenon instead. I'd prefer The Medusa Touch because it has the word "Telekinesis" on it and it's a 30-year-old film (as I write this), so it looks better in the article from a historical perspective. 5Q5 16:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I figured it out and will reupload The Medusa Touch poster soon with the proper information. 5Q5 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Actually it seems the Wikibot did not do the actual deleting of The Medusa Touch poster image. That was done by user Maxim (talk) | (contribs) as recorded on this log page on 12 April 2007 This user (an admin?) has deleted other images, so it appears not to be anti-parapsychological targeting. I will try to reupload the image with hopefully more complete information. 5Q5 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just finished restoring The Medusa Touch poster to both the film's article and this PK article. My first ever image upload to Wikipedia. Let's hope I did it correctly. 5Q5 18:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The poster image didn't last one day in the article before a hard-line skeptical editor named Antelan removed it : 10 November 2007: "Rm. Fair use allows copyrighted posters to be used on articles critically evaluating the movie or the poster itself, not for illustration purposes." I give up. Before I considered using it I checked numerous other examples of film poster use on Wikipedia. Will this editor go after those. Of course not, and I'm not going to supply the names of the articles here. Technically, nearly all the movie articles on Wikipedia that have posters do not offer critical discussion of the poster itself and the use is only for "illustration." I challenge Antelan to begin removing all the film posters on Wikipedia; otherwise, this is anti-parapsychological targeting. 5Q5 22:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to reread the fair use documents. This is a personal slam against me, but I'm not the one who didn't read the rules. Antelan ^talk 23:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I did read the rules. I chose The Medusa Touch poster because it has the word "Telekinesis" prominently on it and therefore was relevant to the critical discussion of TK in popular culture. I changed the caption to indicate it was a "film poster" as opposed to just giving the title and plot. Maybe I could have included additional discussion of the poster itself and that was my fault and the article paid the price. I know you want to be fair, so how about going after the article James Bond, where a film poster is used? That's just one example I could point to. Thanks. 5Q5 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan on making WP:POINT edits on your behalf. This is the second time you have made such a suggestion, and it is really not appropriate. Antelan ^talk 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

5Q5, it is never helpful to make personal references to individual editors or their motives. I understand from what you've written, why you put the poster in, but Atelan is right about fair use. The poster simply does not fit for a number of reasons - including any relevance to the text it is placed near. We welcome your contributions, and I am sure you only tried to help improve the article and Atelan is doing the same. Please assume good faith regarding this editor or any editor in the future. --Northmeister 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize if I offended anyone. I am only an occasional editor here on Wikipedia and my aspiration actually is to become less active in the future, not more. 5Q5 16:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some slight changes

Since there are exactly zero parapsychology academic departments in mainstream universities, calling parapsychology a "field" is a misnomer. It has historical import as a field of inquiry up to the early part of the last century, but since then psychology has moved well-beyond this sort of phrasing.

I also made it clear that publication bias is often the explanation for any positive results. Negative results simply are not interesting enough for acceptance.

Finally, I pointed out that the psychokinesis seen in the movies is usually a result of magical characters.

[2]

ScienceApologist 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The positive-negative biases you're talking about are certainly hugely important. In academic medicine, where lives are figuratively on the line (they don't actually line up patients...) the trend is now to try to publish studies regardless of results in order to avoid that very problem. Of course, that hasn't eliminated publication bias, but it's a recognition at least that this is a huge point. Antelan ^talk 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe they are technically "sub-departments," not full departments. Here's one currently at a mainstream university that I found: University of Edinburgh Koestler Parapsychology Unit 5Q5 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As is being pointed out at Talk:Parapsychology, the British are more accepting of parapsychology since certain investigators end up in psychology departments (for example). However, this still doesn't address the issue that the subject is much maligned and marginalized in academia in general. ScienceApologist 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter of sources. What are yours? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Parapsychology. ScienceApologist 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

BioShock

Doesn't BioShock deserve some attention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.251.105 (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this term, but if is fiction related, submit it to the webmaster of the offsite cultural references list available through the external links. 5Q5 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm doing a lot of edits. I'm trying to commit one change at a time, and for brevity's sake, I'm giving justifications of edits in the edit comments which can be found in the history. Among them:

• Much of the content I'm removing is not directly related to the concept of Psychokinesis, mostly external links.
• Extemporaneous citations. Citing sources serves the purpose of referencing the source of a factual claim, not as a "dumping ground" (read WP:NOT). We don't need 4 references to prove that "moving stuff psychically" falls into psychokinesis
• Citing page numbers in references is wonderful, but it doesn't nesesitate a separate reference.
• There is no need to quote the specific passage related to the fact within the reference itself.
• There is no need to make a wiki link to a term every time it's used in an article, it just creates clutter.

I hope that if anyone disagrees with these edits that they'll discuss it here, I'm fearing a revert war. Verdatum (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert wars around the paranormal usually happen because the editor hates the subject and tries to push one POV or another, not because of bold editing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They also happen because people have a personal investment in the ammount of work they did, even if that work does not conform to WP:STYLE. Whether or not that is the case here is apparently pending discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoring multiple thorough references

Wikipedia Content Guideline Reliable sources says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and includes the statement in the box below. I have therefore reverted the page back to the last version of November 15, 2007. However, I incorporated some of your larger edits and deleted the subsections for the online search engines, the major organizations, and the Wiki translations (all my contributions), but the few other smaller subsequent edits I did not want to attempt and you will have to redo them. I am sorry, but deleting all those references (a year's worth of my work) was a major step and perhaps a day or two to wait for a response (before making additional edits) from the regular editors of this article would have been the best approach. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people. — Wikipedia:Reliable sources

I agree, exceptional claims do require exceptional sources. Any any case where a claim was exceptional, I left the multiple references. I also realize that I had deleted a major effort on someone's part. However, it says nothing about quoting the sources within the reference (likewise, there's no need to copy WP:Reliable sources in a discussion, everyone is quite capable of clicking the link and reading it directly). Nor does it say anything about the need to include page numbers. Nor have I seen such a style anywhere else on wikipedia. Doing such makes a cursory glance at the article appear to have more sources than it actually posesses and does little to facilitate the verification of reserach. If you wish to include page numbers, I am not opposed to this, I merely request that it be a single reference that has a set of pages. (eg. "pages 304-306, 545, 665-669", etc.)Many of these sources that were repeat references were pop culture references (X-Men, superheros, etc.) and again, most of the claims that had multiple references were not in fact controversial because people don't generally doubt that certain beliefs exist. Other cases multiple references involved, for example, multiple reputable dictionaries. This is not needed, as one does not generally question a reputable dictionary. Controversial claims are those that claim occurances of TK to be factual. I admit it is a shame that Mediawiki does not have better merge features such that individual changesets cannot be merged in and out. Luckily, I can do so via merge software.

If you so desire, I can make an annotated list of edits, and you can approve or deny them on an individual basis so that I won't be wasting my time. Please reply. Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, forgive me, I overlooked the talk page archive. Had I noticed the massive quantity of disscussion over this article, I certainly would've brought it to discussion before taking the time to do major edits. I'm in the process of going back and reading the backlog now. Verdatum (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page could use a more readable style. But I think the more references the better. Paranormal pages get attacked a lot, and this helps protect them. Do the style changes, keeping the information and the sources (I haven't read the changes. I assume it is more readable). No need to quote sources in references, but again, that might have been a response to attacks. Keep the page numbers- sometimes people say they are necessary. No need for multiple refs on pop culture, tho. If you're new to the paranormal, Verdatum, I sincerely question whether you know what is questionable or not: you have no idea how these articles get attacked by ideologues. The multiple reputable dictionary refs are very valuable: users often push their own preferred dictionary definition, and find doing so that much harder when multiple refs are in place. If you want instruction on how these things get attacked, look at the talk page archives of the Parapsychology or Psychic articles. I'm glad to have another good-faith editor working on the article... don't give up (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You say "the more references the better," but that is not in conflict with what Verdatum is saying. I think that one of Verdatum's concerns was that the manner of referencing that the article was using made it appear to cite more distinct references than it actually did. He noted one way to go about keeping the page numbers without incrementing the reference count each time, and I agree with this suggestion. Antelan ^talk 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As did I. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I'll merge the redundant references and keep the page numbers. I'll also keep entry names for encyclopedic references. I'll remove the quotes within references as well. I can understand the desire to put them there to defend a position, but if someone edits because they don't buy the reference's validity, they should take the time to aquire and read the reference themselves. If they don't bother, they have no justification to remove it. I suppose I see the point on the dictionary issue and the concern for multiple references is evident. I'll leave them in for now, and go back to discussing them on an individual basis after this cleanup. I'd still very much like to see 5Q5's response to this proposal. As far as my familiarity with paranormal issues, I can at least say I'm new to editing such issues on Wikipedia. I fully appreciate this is a controvertial issue, but the controversy always seems to relate in real-world instances of the phenomena, and critisisms thereof (as opposed to the definition of the phenomena, which is where I see most of the references I believe to be superfluous. As far as my views, I'm really just interested in having a readable and properly styled article. I'm not even going to try to add or remove any factual claims or touch the issue of WP:NPOV at this time. -Verdatum (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do what you want, fellow editors. After working on a rewrite of this page for over a year and putting in all those references, this is no longer a fun hobby for me. I log in and wait to see what problem or frustration or aggravation is up next. I've pretty much contributed all I can ( I'd say 95% of the current article began as mine and tweaked by others) and my role now is just to police the article. ... Style over substance? An easier to read article instead of lengthy documentation? Okay, I'm not going to revert you. ... Wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia, such as might be used by a journalist as a source. It's written by anonymous people. Real encyclopedias can get away with minimal references because there are the reputations of the publisher, writers, and editors, all who are named. ... There are controversial political books in bookstores right now that include excerpts in their references to back them up, so it's not unheard of. Books by Ann Coulter and John Dean, for example. ... The inclusion of page numbers is discussed in Wikipedia:Citing sources (see "Say where you got it"). ... It's unfortunate that the Internet archive has not saved any version of the PK article in over a year, and, eventually, versions in the History log will cycle out after the last 500 edits, so my work in earlier larger versions will disappear. ... I quoted from the policy page because what I was quoting is subject to change. ... One last thing to remember, when you edit the references, I'm the only one who has verified them, so If you change them so drastically that I no longer recognize them (there are so many of them that the excerpts helped to self validate), I will be unable to endorse them as accurate. They will become your references, not the ones I wrote. Have fun. Again, no reverts planned by me. Someone else can police the article from now on. 5Q5 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We need you at least to help police it for POV. If I were you, I'd import my preferred version to www.wikinfo.org. Oh, and Verdatum, the lead sections are the most controversial, especially the definition- people always want to make skepticism part of the definition itself, not just part of the lead (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on wikiinfo.org. Didn't know that existed. Looking at it though, it seems the article would still be subject to editing and even deleting. What I did was download the source code from the 15 Nov 2007 version (with the academic search engines, major organizations, etc.) and am saving it in my personal website's file directory so that I can view it as a web page in case I need to do research someday. ... I'm not saying I will never edit the PK article again. For example, I may make sure this talk page gets properly archived. In real life, however, I'm a professional writer and I need to devote more of my creative time to income-producing projects. 5Q5 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to restore organizations list - discussion

The list in the box below are all prominent organizations with members in academic fields that have journals or other publications that report research or developments in psychokinesis. I contributed this list and it has been in the article without complaint for perhaps up to a year, but recently I deleted it in deference to another editor who felt it was not relevant enough. I'm having second thoughts now. I've seen other science-related articles on Wikipedia that give organizations in external links. Anybody else agree we should restore this list? I removed the Princeton lab because that's shut down. 5Q5 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Major organizations and research centers in the PK / TK field

• American Society for Psychical Research (New York City, USA)
• Parapsychological Association (Petaluma, California, USA)
• Parapsychology Foundation (New York City, USA)
• The Rhine Research Center (Durham, North Carolina, USA)
• Society for Psychical Research (London, UK)

• Agreed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - This is an article on a specific sub-interest in parapsychology. As such, it is too much like spamming to include this list of links. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well then we need to network with the main parapsychology article, and include the links there. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just use this: Template:Parapsychology ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - as Martin^phi says, It belongs in the Parapsychology article. People seriously interested in Psychokinesis will most likely view both articles anyway. Obviously, I'm not at all opposed to including organizations that are specifically devoted to the investigation of PK here. -Verdatum (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I proposed the restoration, but okay, I won't put it back in. I agree, however, the list at least belongs in the parapsychology article. That's not my turf. 5Q5 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to know, I reviewed the article, and each of the above organizations is mentioned, complete with a citation, in the parapsychology article's section on Organizations and publications. -Verdatum (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Random Number Generators

From what I see, the claim, "Inquiry into psychokinesis under parapsychology laboratory conditions is most often done through test subjects attempting to influence random number generators." does not seem to be supported by the source given (http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html). I see plenty of mentions that RNGs are indeed used, but no statements claiming it is the most often used technique. Furthermore, without evidence of some survey of all parapsychology laboratories, I would tend to doubt any source that makes such a claim. Since use of RNGs are mentioned (twice) just above this claim, I believe either a superior source should be found, or the line should be removed. -Verdatum (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The intro has been the most heavily revised section of the article over the past year. I believe refs 6 and 7 about random number generators are mine, but ref 8, the one you are concerned about, and the sentence it goes with, also about random number generators, are another editor's work. In other words, do what needs to be done. A claim could be made, I suppose, that PK metal softening tests are also a popular testing experience, but the sentence refers to laboratory conditions, not informal PK parties. A ref would have to be found in one of the organization newsletters or journals to show current usage. Maybe the sentence should be flagged citation required until then, and if none is found, revised or removed. 5Q5 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well I believe it falls under WP:PEACOCK, and I highly doubt anyone can find a source to back it up. I'll move the reference to the previous mention of RNGs, but I'm removing the claim. -Verdatum (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the source is the PA, authoritative concerning the internal workings of the field. Under the heading "What are the major psi experiments today?" It has as the first one " PK on random number generators" and as the second "PK on living systems." I think we can use something like the above with this source. [3] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I reread the specific sections you mentioned, and still see no reference to the claim that "Inquiry into psychokinesis under parapsychology laboratory conditions is most often done through test subjects attempting to influence random number generators." the key term here is "most often". it is a blanket term that is difficult to prove. The link here does not appear to make such a claim, nor any attempt to prove such a claim. The closest it comes is to claim that RNGs are used in experiments, and that the use of cards with symbols is rare in modern experimentation. If I'm just overlooking the specific claim, please quote an excerpt here. -Verdatum (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that is a reading of "What are the major psi experiments today?" which is the heading. We could use something like "Inquiry into psychokinesis under parapsychology laboratory conditions is often done through test subjects attempting to influence random number generators or biological systems."

In other words, someone read "most often" into "major." "The major psychokinesis experiments under parapsychology laboratory conditions involve test subjects attempting to influence random number generators or biological systems."

I think that's is pretty much what the source says. "Major" of course is a relative term, so doesn't involve PEACOCK. It's major within the context of academic parapsychology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument is valid. And were that claim on it's own I would agree with a revision along the lines of what you're proposing ("Major" would be fine by me in this context, but even "often" on it's own is still a weasel word). But the article also contains "Examples of psychokinesis could include...influencing the output of a random number generator" and "Some paranormal researchers are convinced that psychokinesis exists and deserves further study, pointing to experimental results such as those done using random number generators." I fail to see the need to make three separate sentences concerning random number generators in the opening section. Perhaps the three ideas could be somehow married, or more content could be gathered and the subject of the use of RNGs be given it's own section. Personally, I like my present solution of retaining the reference but moving it to the first mention of RNGs. -Verdatum (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have no objection. I was just arguing relative to the reasons given for deletion (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Types of abilities - classification" References

For ease of typing this out, and to avoid copying lots of data, I'm referring to the following revision. The claim made here is "Psychokinesis is the umbrella term under which are various related specialized abilities. These specialities include: (list)" the list that follows contains one or more references per item. However, the references placed in this location should merely support the fact that the item named can be considered as a subset of PK.

In the revision linked above, the following reference indexes are descriptions of powers held by various fictional superheros, and would not be considered a reputable source as to the classification of the phenomona (Actually, one or two references from The Physics of Superheros looked to be valid and are not listed here): 65, 66, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 82, 97.

The following resources (assuming their excerpts are correct) make reference to the phenomena, or possibly make reference to a phenomena falling into the relm of parapsychology, but make no reference to their classification as a subset of Psychokinesis: 70, 76, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86.

It is my belief that these references add nothing to the article, but only serve to lessen the article's percieved validity, and add to the article's "clutter". For this reason, I feel they should be removed. I will wait an appropriate period of time for opposing arguments before taking action. -Verdatum (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Further, the references given in for the claim "Teleportation (disappearing and reappearing elsewhere)" make no mention of "disappearing"; only to moving, or moving through solid matter. I believe the clarification within the parenthesis should be altered or removed. -Verdatum (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much here, but it looks as if the superhero stuff certainly needs to go huh? (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the stuff of fiction - superhero comic aficionados make up a large enough subculture (for lack of better word) that such information could reasonably be left in the article. Antelan ^talk 02:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not my argument. The references have nothing to do with whether or not a "power" falls into the relm of Psychokinesis. They are on the order of "Ok, so, dis one tiiiiime, Jean Gray did this" which adds nothing to the article as it's already addressed in the pop culture section. According to Wikipedia guidelines, you should make a firm deliniation between actual events and fictional events anyhow. And I say this regardless of the existence or nonexistence of PK in the real world; this article makes no such claim. -Verdatum (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that some of these attributes are more real while others are more fictional? Sorry if I'm still not following you. I looked through the references, and they're not simply one-off "this one time Jean Gray did this one thing" superhero references. Antelan ^talk 05:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am making no claim to to fictionality or factuality of any of the types of abilities. My argument is that even though a superhero demonstrates some specific power, this is no evidence that the power described is a subset of psychokinesis. Even if the superhero in question is known to have psychokinetic powers.

I did not mean to seem as though my complaint with the sources is that the events are singular ("one-off"). Whether Jean exerts a power once, or on a daily basis, it's not relevant to this section unless the source somehow explains that the power is a subset of psychokinesis.

Further, even if you can find a reference in fiction on the order of "Professor X said, 'Jean is spontaneously generating peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches through the power of psychokinesis", it is still a claim made by a fictional character, and should be recorded in a style conforming to WP:CYF WP:WAF.

On the other hand, if you find a reference that says something on the order of "Stan Lee, noted superhero comicbook author said in an interview 'With the power of psychokinesis, one could spontaneously generate peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches.'" Then there would be a potentially valid argument. For the references I have listed, such does not appear to be the case. -Verdatum (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You could revise the line "These specialities include:" to "These specialities include: (some of these may refer to either or both nonfiction and fiction usage, as indicated by the references)," or worded otherwise to your liking. That would solve the problem of making sure the reader is aware of both situations in the list. 5Q5 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, something along those lines sounds reasonable. Though again, I'd only want to see references that positively identify the phenomena as being directly related to PK. None of the references I specified appear to satisfy that. -Verdatum (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't happening spontaneously by the fictional character, then it involves an act initiated by the mind, doesn't it? The refs, at least two I looked at use descriptions "ability" and "become invisible at will." If I may make an analogy, refs that refer to heart attacks are acceptable for the myocardial infarction article. The dual meanings are understood. Mind = psycho. I used abbreviated excerpts from cited sources because can you imagine how much more space would be taken up if I went into more detail being sure that the word mind was used or implied? They're my refs, but as I said in another discussion, I'm not going to revert any edit anyone makes; however, I can't speak for others. I do understand your reasoning for wanting to delete fictional refs. Perhaps some of the unusual specialities could be moved to the pop culture section and then ref'ed from there. Just an idea. I'll let someone else tackle it. 5Q5 (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the references, and each statement that I saw was backed by at least one non-comic source, though many were also backed by comic sources. If there is a particular statement that is not properly backed, let me know because I might have missed it. Also, how would one go about defining non-fictive psychokinesis? I'm not sure of how this distinction would be drawn. I think 5Q5's refs are appropriate here. Antelan ^talk 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not proposing removing the claim, I'm proposing removing the references that fail to support the claim. I don't particularly doubt the appropriateness of any of the items in the list, just the references. Likewise, I don't know how one would deliniate between fictive and non-fictive psychokinesis. For the Nth time, the reference made must support the claim. The claim is whether or not a phenomenon falls within psychokinesis. -Verdatum (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

5Q5, I appreciate your point, but this is needlessly synthesizing facts. Doing so approaches original research. How much so is certainly arguable. Regardless, there is no need to stretch to make such a claim. It merely reduces the credulity of the article. Let the good references speak for themselves. -Verdatum (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

References revised. I removed my fictional comic book references, keeping my nonfiction ones. The list is retained, thereby providing the opportunity for future additional refs from nonfiction media. I appreciate Antelan's and others' support on this issue, but I have to admit I, too, felt an uneasiness reading the real-world sources and then coming upon a fictional one or two. It creates some confusion. I think what happened is that while I was looking for refs out there in book stores, I was grabbing anything I could find to get a source initially. Eventually, I found nonfiction ones and so the fictional ones aren't really needed now. 5Q5 (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)