This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen E. Braude article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The section on parapsychology seems to consist almost entirely of criticisms, without Braude's side of the story or anyone else defending him. It needs serious work. The Grossman stuff is woefully deficient for example. Braude, in that work, relies mostly on experimental fieldwork from people who studied Home and Palladino in depth, not just on anecdotes, and he gives a cogent defence of that evidence, including why occasional fraud (which Home at least was never caught in) doesn't mean all the unexplained phenomena attributed to the medium can be written off124.171.39.121 (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I can't say that I found the article overly critical today, but independent reliable sources are prefered to primary or self-published ones, meaning that there is more likely to be criticism from the mainstream as well. —PaleoNeonate – 09:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Mainstream scientific opinion is overwhelmingly critical of parapsychology. Wikipedia can only reflect this opinion and avoid false balance created by giving weight to counter-opinions from the fringe. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
