Talk:Psychometry (paranormal)/Archive 1

"purported"

Perfectblue, you may want to read weasel words. Purported isn't one. That said, your latest edit is fine, my only objection is presenting this as if it were fact. --Minderbinder 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this personally, but your edits sometime make it sound

1. As if the accuracy of the terminology is in doubt, when it is the nature of what is being described (is it a UFO or is it a weather balloon) that is in doubt
2. As if it is the existence of an experiment is in doubt, when it is the accuracy and conclusions that should be questioned.

I think that it's best if we just use "said" etc, it's nice and neutral.

perfectblue 14:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious

When a page's "trivia" section is bigger than the entire rest of the page. 69.230.182.38 (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Equally hilarious is the assertion that "As of 2009 the phrase 'token-object reading' has superseded the term "psychometry" so as to avoid potential confusion with the branch of psychology called 'psychometrics'." That sounds like an assertion of psychologists to me. If so, the term is not a primarily psychological term; the term is metaphysical. Common use is usually given primary weight in wikipedia as should be the case for this article. - Steve3849 09:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Move page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

My suggestion is based both on common usage and actual spelling (psychometry vs psychometerics). A google search turns up far more pages about "psychometry" than "token object reading". Furthermore, most of the "token" related links also mention "psychometry", whereas the links regarding "psychometry" rarely mention "token object reading". Additionally, only very few sites of the google search for "psychometry" turn up "psychometrics". My suggestions are to either move this article to Psychometry (paranormal), or better to simply let what is now an unnecessary disambiguous page become the rightful article: Psychometry. Rephrased, what do you think of moving this article to Psychomtery? - Steve3849 09:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I did go back through the history of Psychometry and found the original edit made in 2006 that regards the 'superseding of the term token object reading' as currently stated in the lede which was placed by a user who is now blocked. However, the edit was referenced to parapsych.org which is a glossary that does indeed state under the term "psychometry" that "owing to the confusion with a psychological term, 'psychometry' has in recent years been superseded by 'token-object reading.'” Yet, what is telling is that the same glossary does NOT have an entry as of today for "token-object reading". One may appear soon if they care at all as I recently emailed them about their peculiar oversight. I still think this article should be moved. - Steve3849 11:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Looking at the mainspace links to the pschometry page, they all appear to relate to this topic. The only exception I noticed is the List of academic disciplines. That should surely link to psychometrics, since, even if researchers are interested in "token-object reading", they don't practice it as a discipline. The OED does list 'psychometrics' as a second meaning of 'psychometry', but that just needs a hatnote. 'Token-object' is a collocation I cannot find in the OED. William Avery (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note Psychometry is currently a disambiguation page, since there are several things that "psychometry" could refer to, and none has been shown to be the primary topic. If you wish to move the page to psychometry, you need to show this is the primary topic for the term. I note that there were 8143 hits on Psychometry (currently the disambiguation page) in December 2009 [1] and only 3414 on Token-object_reading [2], which is not the start of a strong case. If it is not determined to be primary topic, the page may be moved to a name with a parenthetical disambiguator instead. I hesitate to suggest a suitable one but psychometry (paranormal) may fit? Searching for All pages with titles containing paranormal shows it is a common paranthetical disambiguator and it seems a reasonably neutral term to me. --MegaSloth (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is possible the disambiguation page was receiving hits mostly for the primary topic (paranormal) and the excess portion found the brief description there satisfactory. - Steve3849 12:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Its been brought to my attention that what I am proposing is actually a multiple move, not a merge. - Steve3849 12:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Token-object reading → Psychometry (paranormal) JHunterJ (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Psychometry → Psychometry (disambiguation) — Common usage. - Steve3849 12:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Token-object reading → Psychometry

Please also see the opening discussion regarding this move in the prior section: Talk:Token-object_reading#Move_page - Steve3849 00:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Token-object reading gets fewer than half the hits (3414 in December)[3] of psychometry (8143)[4]. If anything, the dab page should be moved to Psychometry (disambiguation) and the base name should be turned into a redirect to Psychometrics (21,074 hits in December). But leaving it as is, with no primary topic, is fine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  The suggestion to turn Pyschometry into a redirect to Psychometerics is based entirely on numbers of hits and without knowing why those hits occur the numbers are meaningless. Did you read the lengthly commentary in the above section by both myself and user William Avery? Restated, most of the 'what links here' pages to psychometry are paranormal related. Redirecting Psychometry to Psychometerics (a different term -- psychologists do not use the term "psychometry") is undue weight against common use. This would be more confusing for wikipedia users.

  As far as leaving the pages how they are currently again does not reflect common use. A google search for "token-object reading" turns up articles entitled psychometry -- those are the ones with content; the pages that are entitled "token-object reading" appear to have taken their cue from this very wikipedia article (which I find to be a distressing phenomenon on a variety of topics on the internet, but that's another issue). - Steve3849 23:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  Fewer than half of the visitors to the dab page wanted to go to this article. Therefore, this article is not the primary topic of the ambiguous title. If you would rather have this article titled "psychometry", then it would only take an disambiguator to do so. Psychometry (paranormal), for instance, or whatever is appropriate for the topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as I see no reason to make this the primary topic. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  Please read my reply to user CRGreathouse. - Steve3849 23:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC) PS How about the reason: Oxford Dictionary definition for psychometry: primary definition??? - Steve3849 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  The Oxford Dictionary does not determine which article Wikipedia readers are going to look for under a given title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion on this prior post. I meant to refer to my rely above to you (JHunterJ). However, my mention of Oxford did not regard wiki traffic. CRGreathouse said he/she could "see no reason"; I was offering Oxford's primary definition as one reason. - Steve3849 01:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per my rationale above. I would not oppose a move of Token-object reading to an appropriately disambiguated title, such as psychometry (paranormal) if others desire it. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes more sense to me than the current name. Oxford, Websters and the original glossary reference at parapsych.org all define "pyschometry" primarily as paranormal. Meanwhile, Oxford, Websters and the original reference at parapsych.org all lack an entry for "token-object reading". Even this article's reference to the book Parapsychology: A Concise History by John Beloff on page 97 specifically defines "psychometry" and uses "token object reading" (without the hyphen) only as a descriptive phrase rather than as a defined term on page 29. I am fine with a single move to Psychometry (paranormal). - Steve3849 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• New Proposal Regarding my last reply dated 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC) directly above to user MegaSloth what do all of you think regarding a single move to Psychometry (paranormal)? - Steve3849 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds better, but the primary name should not be redirected to such an article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose if anything, it should redirect to Psychometrics. 70.29.210.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion #2 Token-object reading → Psychometry (paranormal)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved

The above discussion related to a multiple move request is still officially open and as it is unanimously rejected I'd close it myself, but it is not wiki policy for one who contributes to the discussion to do the closing. In the mean time:

As a result of the discussion in the last 2 sections a single move from Token-object reading → Psychometry (paranormal) was suggested by multiple participants without objection. I would like to do this move. However, I'll wait a few days in case someone else who hasn't yet read all this has something to add. - Steve3849 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed the other discussion and performed the move. Any editor (not just an admin) can revert if needed, or voice objection on User talk:JHunterJ and I'll self-revert. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Psychic discussion is too general for this article.

"Although a subject of controversy,[9] psychics who use psychometry have been used by law enforcement as psychic detectives[10] "as a last resort [and] as an investigative tool with caution"[11] for providing clues not directly admissible in the court of law such as a criminal's character, or the location of dead bodies.[10][12] Many police departments around the world have released official statements saying that they do not regard psychics as credible or useful on cases."

The entire section quoted above from the introduction of the psychometry article seems out of place. This article is about psychometry, not psychics as people doing this or that. The sources talk about the general psychic phenomenom, where psychometry is an afterthought. In particular, the counter-balance statement at the end doesn't even mention psychometry. I propose the removal of this entire section from the article. I am open to replacement or rewording of that section with proper sources that are more specifically about psychometry.) — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue was addressed. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a little underdeveloped

Seems like there should be a bit more information between the history and fictional uses. Of course, this might open up a battleground a little, since it'd mean starting on more hotly debated claims, which'd mean needing to balance things, and... yeah, fun. Still, shouldn't modern usage, notable tests of it (I vaguely recall one, but would have to check my recent reading. Think it was a student-vs-psychic test in Richard Wiseman's Deception and Self-Deception? Though I could be horribly wrong, I read a lot.), and the psychic detectives from the lead be discussed a bit more? 86.** IP (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree on the underdeveloped, the whole article seems to centre around Joseph Rodes Buchanan with nothing else in the history or any explanation of what they mean by "Energy field". IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Also the article seems to be mostly two big quotes and then the fiction section. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Science, theory

I see "spiritualism-based scientists built upon Buchanan's theories", but is scientist a proper term for someone who practices or studies in relation to a belief-system? Especially that "theory" immediately follows, which in science is not a hypothesis, belief or opinion (see Scientific theory). This appears confusing to me. I see no problem with the direct citations of people refering to it as an "exact science", because here we just report their beliefs, which seems fine. It's not an article I've been involved with, so I prefer to ask here instead of boldly making changes. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I see at one time the sentence used to read simply "scientists" (in quotes) [5] and later was amended by someone trying to bring it into compliance with NPOV. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that there was a change, and it seems better formulated, thanks.

Just so editors who might use NPOV as an excuse to avoid criticism, I would like to mention that it does not mean that all views should be given equal weight; according to NPOV, the mainstream view should have more weight than minority viewpoints. I think that the mainstream view of psychometry is as a belief system as part of spiritualism and metaphysics, a delusion or a pseudo-science; that said I've not yet looked for sources clarifying this, which are still needed to state it. But the lead currently uses "supporters" and "claimed ability" which seems enough for now. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)