Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 19

Bundling citations
Does anyone have a problem with it if I WP:CITEBUNDLE the sources cited in the lead? —PermStrump ( talk )  21:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope. But I'd prefer it if they were moved out of the lead altogether, as is more typical. The article might require more improvement before that's possible... not really sure.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did the best I could. I didn't know how to bundle the ones that were linked to other citations later in the body. —PermStrump  ( talk )  00:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Most academics do not take parapsychology seriously?

 * "In 2016 it was noted that most academics do not take parapsychology seriously"

I have a problem with this sentence. The source is the opinion of scientist Sean M. Carroll writing in Wired magazine, which appears to be an extract from his book. Carroll gives no source to check the accuracy of his opinion. I have no doubt there are many academics who would agree, I don't know who many disagree, nor how many have not expressed an opinion. The sentence seems to fail on "Avoid stating opinions as facts" per WP:YESPOV whereas I think we should be adhering more to WP:NPOV based on WP:RS --Iantresman (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Taken from his book, published a few days ago. A reliable source. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute the source. I have a problem with unambiguously presenting Carroll's opinion as fact, contrary to WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT. --Iantresman (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also consistent with just about every source we have on the topic... even parapsychology sources. I don't see how this is only an opinion relegated to a single personality.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Carroll is a poor source. Your link to the AJP paper is better as it includes sources and data. No quibble there, except that it never mentions how many and how "seriously" academics take the subject.--Iantresman (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "I do not dispute the source." Good. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I dispute how we described the contents of the source. It contains an opinion which is not clear from the sentence mentioned. WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT both require us to attribute the opinion. Or we use a different source, such as the one mentioned by Jess. --Iantresman (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The Journal of Parapsychology is not a better source than Carroll. Wikipedia is not the place where we do our own research, and investigate whether claims are true, or supportable. We simply represent what the sources say. Yesterday, you were saying Carroll was a fine source, but you thought it was an opinion relegated to a single person. I responded with the Journal of Parapsychology which gives the very same impression (though the wording is different), to show it's a widespread opinion, even within the parapsychology community. No part of my post suggested we replace Carroll with the Journal of Parapsychology, which would require removing the sentence in question, and diluting our independent secondary sources quite unnecessarily.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course we don't don't do our own research per WP:OR. We also don't present other people's opinion as fact per WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT. --Iantresman (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well most scientists do not take parapsychology seriously (enough refs point that out on the article just as most don't take creationism seriously), it isn't really just Carroll's opinion... But I see what you are getting at. Do you want me to move it from the lead? Perhaps it can be put elsewhere. TreeTrailer (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see a couple of options (a) Attribute it to Carroll, in which case it probably does not belong in the lead (b) Find an alternative source which deals with some actual figures, such as the parapsychology source given earlier, though they don't actually say "Most academics do not take parapsychology seriously". But if "most scientists do not take parapsychology seriously", we should have some hard figures somewhere. --Iantresman (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I know the 'Australian Journal of Parapsychology' is neither a reliable nor an independent source (WP:IS). We need to be realistic - that fringe paper will not end up on the article, I think the above user was just citing it to make an example. I have no problem attributing the source to Carroll, if that is what other users agree with... TreeTrailer (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean we should have some hard figures somewhere? We have four reliable sources on the article that say most scientists consider parapsychology a pseudoscience:


 * Gross, Paul R; Levitt, Norman; Lewis, Martin W. (1996). The Flight from Science and Reason. New York Academy of Sciences. p. 565. ISBN 978-0801856761 "The overwhelming majority of scientists consider parapsychology, by whatever name, to be pseudoscience."


 * Friedlander, Michael W. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. Westview Press. p. 119. ISBN 0-8133-2200-6 "Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientific acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence among the scientific community. Most scientists write it off as pseudoscience unworthy of their time."


 * Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3 "Many observers refer to the field as a "pseudoscience". When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated."


 * Cordón, Luis A. (2005). Popular Psychology: An Encyclopedia. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. p. 182. ISBN 0-313-32457-3. "The essential problem is that a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists, regards parapsychology as a pseudoscience, due largely to its failure to move beyond null results in the way science usually does. Ordinarily, when experimental evidence fails repeatedly to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis is abandoned. Within parapsychology, however, more than a century of experimentation has failed even to conclusively demonstrate the mere existence of paranormal phenomenon, yet parapsychologists continue to pursue that elusive goal."

It doesn't get more 'clear' than that. What figures are you talking about? TreeTrailer (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that dusts off any lingering doubts. If I had the technical ability, I'd mark this discussion closed, with no further edits to be made. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, then we need to cite more than one source, rather than given the impression that it is the opinion of one person. --Iantresman (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The "figures" I was considering, was a paper which contained the results of survey of scientists/academics, rather than the opinion of several people which backs up their opinions. --Iantresman (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again... it is not our job to look into claims and do research. Statistics and supporting charts are not required for us to make factual claims. All that is required are independent reliable sources expressing a significant opinion, and we have those. If I were to make a change to this sentence, it would be to remove "In 2016, it was noted that..." from the beginning, which makes it seem like this is just one opinion much more than is due.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion cannot be closed, as long as that misleading footnote to Wired remains on the page. The only possible justification for "Most academics do not take X seriously" would be a reference to a poll, or to a serious survey of academic opinion on X. This footnote pretends to refer to some sort of justification of an opinion, but in reality only points toward an opinion piece in Wired which happens to agree with the editor's opinion. Furthermore, the works cited above (Friedlander, Cordón, etc) do not fulfill this criterion. As far as I can see, this is only a list of opinions. Have any of these people done a study? We could spend all day amassing citations of works of opinion on both sides of this claim about what most academics think about X, but it wouldn't amount to even one step towards resolving the question of whether it's true or or not that "Most academics do not take X seriously." dJoseph Rowe (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added a peer-reviewed source to support that statement:  —PermStrump  ( talk )  11:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, half a dozen reliable sources offering an opinion, only confirm an opinion. There needs to be a chain of evidence that leads us to a couple of academic surveys on the subject, per WP:RS and WP:ASSERT --Iantresman (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is getting tiresome. Iantresman first wrote "That's fine, then we need to cite more than one source, rather than given the impression that it is the opinion of one person.", Permstrump then adds another source and now you claim "half a dozen reliable sources offering an opinion, only confirm an opinion." This is not really fair. I believe you are confused about something here. If a reliable source says something, it is not up to us to say whether it is true or false or talk about a "chain of evidence." We have reliable sources saying something so that is what we cite, it does not matter if you believe it to be a false opinion or not. Wikipedia just cites what the sources say. TreeTrailer (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "The only possible justification for "Most academics do not take X seriously" would be a reference to a poll" No. You have a significant misunderstanding about how wikipedia works.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. Wikipedia does only demand that its own articles cite reliable sources, not that the reliable sources cite reliable sources who cite reliable sources. That demand would make any article work impossible.
 * Also, this seems a lot like wikilawyering to me. Do you honestly believe that a majority of scientists accept parapsychology as valid? Is its low academic status then caused by a conspiracy of a few powerful skeptics? Or does it not really have low academic status? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

(Friedlander, Cordón, etc)

I don't think it's "wikilawyering" to insist on an editor's responsibility to make a clear distinction between footnote-references that point to factual studies of a highly-controversial claim, and footnote references to opinions (however eminent) on that same claim. Also, I see that you've narrowed your focus to "scientist" instead of "academics" ... actually, that's OK with me (I think most of us would agree that scientists' opinions are more relevant about something that claims to be a science). Do I really think a majority of scientists accept that parapsychology is a serious field of scientific study, and not a "pseudoscience"? The truth is, I really don't know ... and I'm curious... that's the whole point! But I do suspect that, if the question on such a poll were phrased in a fair and intelligent way (very important with polls!) what you would get would be essentially a big question mark, or shrug. One reason for this is the confusion of all kinds of quacks claiming to be "parapsychologists"; the poll would have to be clear that it's not asking about them --- for the presence of quacks alone doesn't invalidate parapsychology, any more than many quacks claiming to be nutritionists invalidates nutritional science. If this were not such a controversial subject, I probably wouldn't be so insistent. But I think it's disingenuous to insert a footnote in support of an opinion about a majority of academic beliefs (something which in principle is verifiable by a study or poll) on a controversial subject, which in reality points to nothing but a published opinion. A list of opinions by eminent people may be interesting, but it cannot be a substitute for a study of a verifiable/falsifiable claim. This footnote blurs a very important distinction. Joseph Rowe (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Are there any quotes in any reliable source that say "Most scientists [or most academics] accept parapsychology as a valid field of science"? We have five quotes saying the opposite. You people are pulling a controversy out of thin air. Your wish for polls notwithstanding, this is a Wikipedia discussion page, and what we do is quote sources, not pine for better sources.
 * If you wish to question the idea that parapsychology has a bad standing within science, question it elsewhere. After that questioning has been written down in reliable sources, we can quote you questioning it - if you generate any interest for it. Until then, you will just have to accept that the current version of the article says what the current sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that several reliable sources have said that academics/scientists do not take parapsychology seriously. If it was another fact, such as Jupiter being the largest planet in the Solar System, we could easily backup several reliable secondary sources, with primary sources and hard data. Often this step is ignored because the secondary sources are not contentious. As someone with a scientific background, I have to ask myself how the secondary sources know that the majority of academics/scientists do not take parapsychology seriously. Is it just a straw poll with colleagues? Is it just because these secondary sources mix with other skeptics? Does it assume all academics/scientists? The only fact I can draw is that several reliable sources give the opinion that most academics/scientists do not take parapsychology seriously, but an opinion is not a reliable fact with primary sources.

Another check I have used, is to see how other tertiary sources have assessed parapsychology, considering that they have access to the same secondary reliable sources. Do they also characterise it as pseudoscience, and a subject not taken seriously? www.britannica.com gives no such suggestion, The AAAS gives no suggestion about the "Parapsychological Association". None of this is to say that the secondary sources are incorrect, only that there is no science to backup the secondary sources, suggesting that the majority of academics/scientists do not take parapsychology seriously. --Iantresman (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This page isn't intended to answer your questions or curiosity. You're very welcome to do that on your own. See WP:NOTFORUM. If you have a proposal for new content backed up by reliable sources, please start a new section and be specific. In the interim, the article says the same thing all our sources appear to say, and we cannot undermine them just because you have a different opinion on the state of the research. It's time to move on.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:EXCEPTIONAL is very clear. The onus is not on editors to prove that a theory is fringe, it's on editors who wish to prove that the view is not fringe. If there aren't multiple high quality, independently published reliable sources written by experts in the field of psychology endorsing parapsychology, then it's considered WP:FRINGE. In the case of articles on fringe topics, it's our responsibility as wikipedia editors to "summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence... When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." See the subsection WP:PARITY: "Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources." —PermStrump  ( talk )  19:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree very much with the preceding comment by Iantresman. My reply to Gadling's reply to me, above: you still don't get what I am saying. You are knocking down the following straw men: 1) Given the absence (so far) of polls or studies that would settle the claim about majority scientific opinion regarding parapsychology, I do not object (as you suggest I do)  to opinions about that claim being published in the article as opinions; 2) I do not wish (as you suggest I do) to "question the idea that parapsychology has a bad standing(whatever that means) within science"--- though I do point out the extreme vagueness of that phrase in italics, which anyone can see; 3)I do not seek to balance the one-sidedness of the list of opinions affirming that scientists have a low opinion of parapsychology, nor do I object to these opinions being mentioned; 3) nor am I "pining" for someone to go and organize a poll on the subject --- though I do suspect such a poll might already exist, which would render this discussion mostly moot, but which none of us has taken the trouble to find. What I do object to, is a rhetorical blurring of the distinction between opinion and fact. The article sentence that points to the footnote in question, begins with the phrase "It has been noted that" X. The vast majority (sorry, I can't offer a poll on this ;-) of readers  who don't take the trouble to read the Wired article, will naturally think that this points to a study of X, not to just another opinion X. If the editor had said: "An opinion piece in Wired magazine supports the widely-held belief that X", it would be honest, and I would have no objection. Joseph Rowe (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither of you are listening to what has been said about Wikipedia policies, you are now just using this talk-page as a forum. I am going to request to have this discussion closed - There is no issue here. It is utterly futile to continue this discussion. TreeTrailer (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleting users comments is also not a good thing to do . TreeTrailer (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So you want to label something we found in five reliable sources as an "opinion" although there is not a shred of evidence that anyone disagrees with it.
 * Everything I said above still applies. There are no "strawmen". For example, I never suggested that you "object [..] to opinions about that claim being published in the article as opinions", as you claim I did.
 * If you want to label a quote as an opinion, you have to give evidence that it is. Meaning: you need realiable sources disagreeing with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, back to basics of simple epistemology. True opinion is not the same as knowledge. You seem to think the two are equivalent. (Socrates cleared up this confusion 2500 years ago.) If an astronomer writes that most astronomers think there are Earth-like planets with intelligent life, and I say that's their opinion, are you going to tell me I have to find an astronomer who disagrees, before I can call it opinion? In any case, the Wired article is obviously an opinion piece, and does not claim to be otherwise, including the quote in question. Joseph Rowe (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you please follow the conventions for indenting? When you reply to my one-colon text, use two colons. This makes it easier for the readers to follow the conversation by making clear who talks to whom. I fixed that for you.
 * "If an astronomer writes that most astronomers think" - that is vastly different from the current case. You should write "If five astronomers write that most astronomers think".
 * The article does not call parapsychology's low standing a fact. It just repeats what the sources say, and says that the sources say it. You want us to add the original research statement that what the sources say is "their opinion". This is against the rules. Please find a source that says that parapsychology's low standing is just an opinion or belief. But, as you already have been told repeatedly, a source that disagrees would be fine too.
 * Also, your failed attempt to lecture me on obvious trivialities that have nothing to do with the case or my reasoning does not help. You are not addressing what I say, you treat me like some kind of idiot instead. But I am used to this kind of "reasoning" from all types of pseudoscientist, so it does not bother me much. It just lowers my opinion of you further and further. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies do not require us to blindly accept any policy or guidelines. Discussion is the only way to reach consensus. WP:RS helps us determine facts, it does not dictate them. I can find you dozens of reliable sources that will tell you that Pluto is the ninth planet of the Solar System. Further discussion explains why this fact is inaccurate. More recent secondary sources are available, based on primary sources, that confirm why Pluto is not considered a major planet. Likewise, all the reliable sources we have suggesting that most scientists do not take parapsychology seriously, appear to be primary sources, ie. the authors' opinions. If they were secondary sources, they would refer us, or we could find, the primary sources on which the comments are based. --Iantresman (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * a better use of time would be to find dozens of independent, reliable sources that say parasychology is well-respected in the mainstream scholarly view. —PermStrump  ( talk )  03:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But that is not what the article says, and is not something that sources suggest. --Iantresman (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we all agree. —PermStrump  ( talk )  08:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, that's good news! So now, I guess everyone agrees that the phrase whose footnote points to an opinion piece in Wired, namely: "It has been noted that most academics do not take the claims of parapsychology seriously" is both vague and misleading, and should be changed to "It is widely believed that most academics do not take most of the claims of parapsychology seriously." I'll hope to see it changed by the person who wrote it.Joseph Rowe (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Per WP:YESPOV, this is uncontested information stated factually in several reliable secondary sources. Quoting from NPOV: "the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested", which is the entire purpose of your proposal.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When I said, "Then I guess we all agree", I meant, "I guess we all agree that '[parasychology is well-respected in the mainstream scholarly view] is not something that sources suggest.'" —PermStrump  ( talk )  21:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, it's true we agree on that. What we do not agree on is that several users here (including user Jess, who apparently didn't read my entry above about epistemology) seem to think that true opinion is the same as knowledge. If someone writes that most astronomers think there are Earth-like planets with intelligent life somewhere in the universe, and I say that's just their opinion, are you going to tell me that implies that some astronomers disagree? Or (like user Gadling) are you going to tell me that, in order to call it opinion, I have to produce disagreements from reputable astronomers? No. Any honest astronomer will confirm that it's opinion (opinion both about the planets and about the consensus, assuming no poll has been taken). This is not a trivial point. Allowing footnotes that pretend to refer to knowledge, whereas they only refer to opinion, is bad practice (especially with a subject as controversial as parapsychology), no matter how plausible or widespread the opinion happens to be. (Sorry for all the edits, I'm getting the hang of a new browser)Joseph Rowe (talk) Joseph Rowe (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Joseph Rowe (talk)
 * Is there anybody here who thinks "true opinion is the same as knowledge"? I don't. Does anybody else? Why should they? The relation between true opinion and knowledge has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. It is a red herring.


 * "If someone writes that most astronomers" - Stop inventing similes that are not similar at all because they fit badly in several aspects. If not someone, but five astronomers say that, we write in the article that those astronomers say that. Our writing it does not make it true or knowledge, it just reiterates what the sources say. We do not know if it is their opinion or a well-established fact, we only know that they say it. Therefore we do not write that it is their opinion, we do not write that it is fact or true, we do not write that it is knowledge, we just write that they say it. Why is it so difficult to understand for you that we do not just make up things like that? What is your agenda? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite obvious what his agenda is, check his userpage before he blanked it, he endorses the pseudoscience of parapsychologists like Russell Targ and claims he wants to "mount a campaign or petition of protest to the editorial board of Wikipedia" because he objects to parapsychology being described as a pseudoscience. TreeTrailer (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF It is a fact that some people have described parapsychology as a pseudoscience. It is also a fact that the Parapsychological Association is affiliated with the AAAS. But it would be wrong for editors to draw their own conclusions from either fact. --Iantresman (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * According to the reliable scientific sources on this article parapsychology is a pseudoscience because it does not make testable predictions, has made no progress in over a hundred years, has no empirical or repeatable evidence for 'psi' phenomena (experiments that can be replicated by neutral scientists outside of parapsychology labs), no mechanism, no theory, unfalsifiability of claims (psi is meant to be 'immaterial' whatever that means), proponents of parapsychology reject the null hypothesis, search for 'mysteries' instead of recording scientific data etc. It's ideas incompatible with neuroscience and physics. The list goes on and on (I just took these from the article itself i.e. Alock, Bunge, Carroll, Hyman etc). But yes you can ignore all of those sources and bring up the Parapsychological Association's association with the AAAS which means nothing. As I said this discussion is not really going anywhere, there is nothing else to discuss here. We have many reliable sources on the article which describe parapsychology as a pseudoscience. It is not Wikipedia's mission to question if what these reliable sources say are true or false, we just cite them. I think it is time we all move on. TreeTrailer (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion is the means by which we try to reach consensus. It could also be pointed out that in the real world, there are university research and courses in parapsychology, eg. the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at The University of Edinburgh, and at least 20 universities in eight other countries. Clearly none of the people involved consider parapsychology to be pseudoscience. The only way for Wikipedia to reconcile these opposite views, is either (a) to describe them both (ie ".. representing fairly .. significant views") per WP:NPOV (b) pretend that one group of opinions is fact and overrides the other, in contradiction to WP:ASSERT. --Iantresman (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are also universities that teach quackery such as chiropractory or universities that teach degrees in the pseudoscience of numerology. Yet none of these people believe they are doing pseudoscience. Self-delusion is widespread. But seriously Wow (!) 20 universities in the world that teach parapsychology??? You do realise there are nearly 3000 universities in the USA alone, right? ... That alone tells you how insane the claims of parapsychology are and how fringe the subject is. The majority of academia want nothing to do with it. I don't know where this discussion is going Ian, surely we have better things to be do doing. We should not be using this talk-page as a forum, I believe this issue has been resolved. There is an over-whelming consensus both here and on the Wikipedia article with reliable sources that indicate parapsychology has a lot of problems. You can bash this out with someone else if you will, but likely this discussion will be closed soon. TreeTrailer (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I think there is only one university in the world offering a degree course in "Applied golf management". They are not self-delusional, insane, or fringe, though I accept that there may be people who think so. --Iantresman (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And and, your observation of "just 20 universities in the world", compares with the number of "reliable sources" who believe that parapsychology is pseudoscience. Do you realise there are nearly 3000 universities in the USA alone with perhaps 300,000 academics? I find it odd that you are happy to accept on faith the beliefs of such a small number of "reliable sources" compared to perhaps 100 times more academics who are in university doing some research, and dismissed on the a prior assumption that anyone involved in parapsychology is "unreliable" and "insane". As I've said many times, I am more than happy to attribute the views of those who think parapsychology is pseudoscience, but it doesn't make it a fact per WP:ASSERT, even though I may think that most "psi" is bunkum. --Iantresman (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my analogy. To spell it out, for those who are analogy-challenged, it would be as if someone wrote "It has been noted that most astronomers believe there are Earth-like planets with intelligent life." And then a footnote which takes you ... to a study of astronomers' opinions? To a poll? No. It takes you to an opinion piece by a minor commentator on the subject, not even an astronomer, and a piece which gives no objective evidence, and cites no polls about what most astronomers believe, and merely states the exact same opinion quoted in the entry. At best, this is just verbiage. Even quotes of eminent academic opinion castigating parapsychology would be better than a footnote which is suggestive of pointing to hard evidence, but only points to opinion. But this is not a major matter in itself. Personally, I don't care that much about academic opinion polls, I just think that it's poor practice, when dealing with a highly-controversial subject, to use footnotes suggestive of hard evidence, that only point to editorials. I have nothing against the editorials themselves! As for my "agenda", there's nothing hidden about it. (I didn't intentionally blank or retract the comment about Russell Targ, and Brian Josephson, as was insinuated, it accidentally got removed.) OK, the footnote thing about academic opinion isn't that important in itself, but it looks like part of a pattern of someone playing fast and loose about the difference between fact and opinion in the history of Wikipedia entries on parapsychology. Please recall that, not so long ago, the lead entry on this page was incredibly dogmatic: it baldly claimed that parapsychology IS a pseudoscience! At least that has been changed, and so much the better! More important than my warning about that type of footnote, is the tyrannical wielding of the word "pseudoscience" as a weapon to slander any field which one happens to dislike (emboldened by the fact that some influential scientists happen to dislike it also). I have nothing against a lively debate as to the truth or falsity of parapsychology as a science, but I cannot accept the license to label it, pseudo-objectively, as a factual pseudoscience, in the same way as religious inquisitors labeled Bruno's science as heresy. In our times, "pseudoscience" is often used as a mere verbal weapon, to replace the outmoded cudgel, "heresy." Furthermore, to label eminent physicists such as Russell Targ, or Nobel prizewinner Brian Josephson, as pseudoscientists because they take parapsychology seriously is nothing more than slander.Joseph Rowe (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The germane policy is WP:RS/AC, which does not require polls. Also, about how Wikipedia would have covered Galileo's theory during his life, see WP:FLAT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * " the tyrannical wielding of the word "pseudoscience" as a weapon to slander any field which one happens to dislike" I take umbrage at that. The best opposition to parapsychology is well-argued. It is not just a whim plus running after influential people.
 * Also, the Bruno comparison is just the usual bullshit people use when their ideas are not accepted: those who do not accept the ideas are "inquisitors" although they neither kill people nor torture or imprison them.
 * And an "eminent physicist" is someone who is an expert for physics, not every science there is, so any eminent physicist can turn into a pseudoscientist when trying to do any science other than physics. The argument from authority you are using here is a rather basic fallacy.
 * But if your ignorance about psi skepticism and the reasoning for it is so vast that you equate it with such obviously ridiculous strawmen, it is no wonder that you disagree with an article that simply says it how it is. Not the article is at fault, but your perception of people who disagree with you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious from the above that you've become too angry to understand what I am really trying to do, which is simply to prevent recurrences of disguising opinion as fact. I would be just as much against slipping in pro-parapsychology opinion disguised as fact, as I am the reverse. I don't propose to continue this discussion any more, except to register my denial of your charge that I "disagree with an article that simply says it how it is." Actually, I find the parapsychology article, as it is now (with the exception of that footnote), rather good overall --- a whole lot better than it used to be! For the last time, I am absolutely not against informing people of the anti-parapsychology point of view. (I stated this clearly before). Nor am I laboring under a "vast ignorance" of the skeptical point view, considering that I used to be among the skeptics myself, until I started learning about the best experiments in parapsychology, instead of just the quacks and charlatans. And finally, the comparison with the Inquisition isn't as far-fetched as it might seem: of course it's no longer permitted to jail and torture heretics; but people can, and do try to ruin reputations and even deprive ideological opponents of a living, so as to protect the dominant paradigm — which has been accomplished in many cases, not just parapsychology. And last of all: you say I'm using "argument from authority" when I say it's wrong to call Nobel prizewinner Brian Josephson a "pseudoscientist" because he takes seriously a field which is thought to be a pseudoscience in some people's opinion. But "argument from authority" is not defined as some kind of simple fallacy, as you seem to imply. Argument from authority can be useful and valid, if it's not misused. (check out your own link, if you don't believe me.) In this case, I don't believe I've misused it. But as I say, I see no point in continuing this. The footnote is not a major problem, and I'm sorry that I somehow pissed you off — it wasn't my intention, and I meant no disrespect. Peace. Joseph Rowe (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you were a "skeptic" once, that only means that you know what you thought before, not what skeptics in general think. So you were an inquisitor before your Damascus experience? And you used the word "pseudoscience" as a weapon to slander any field which you happened to dislike? No wonder you stopped doing that, it does not make a lot of sense. But I can tell you that every skeptic I know is different from that.
 * "the best experiments in parapsychology" are still not good enough to justify believing in something like psi, as you would know if you had read the skeptical criticisms of them. They typically find only small effects that can easily slip in when you set up a complex experiment, and after a while people find holes in them. So the best experiments are replaced by other best experiments after a few decades.
 * "the comparison with the Inquisition isn't as far-fetched" - this is just one exemple of the way people with irrational worldviews, like you, stretch and distort words until they lose their original meaning. An inquisitor who does not torture or burn people, but only writes and talks, is not an inquisitor by any sensible definition. Using the word this way is nothing but hate propaganda.
 * What you say about argument from authority does not make sense. I know that fallacy very well, thank you, and your attempt to lecture me on it failed miserably. A physics Nobel prize winner is an authority on physics, and when he talks about physics you should take what he says seriously. When he talks about parapsychology he is just some random guy with an opinion. Using his Nobel to claim that he isn't is a classical case of an argument from authority. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This guy stoops to mere insult instead of argument, and I won't join him there. But for those who may be misled by his dismissal of argument from authority as a simple fallacy, I quote from the very article he recommended: "Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided - it has been held to be a valid argument about as often as it has been considered an outright fallacy." In the same article, Carl Sagan recommends that we mistrust argument from authority, and I wouldn't disagree with that. However, mistrust is not the same as total dismissal of a fallacy. It is a recommendation of caution. When argument from authority is offered as proof, it is misused, and fallacious; but when properly used, it is equivalent to a statement about probabilities, given a background of uncertainty. My argument from authority is this: when some people are claiming that everyone who takes parapsychology seriously is a pseudoscientist (a pejorative, insulting term, please note); and their opponents are claiming that this is very unjust, because even if it's true that some pseudoscientists (and charlatans) practice parapsychology, it's very unlikely that a brilliant physicist like Brian Josephson falls into this category when he's doing parapsychology. It's not impossible, of course, but it's very unlikely. After all, it's not as if we were talking about literature, or the way Josephson plays the piano or something! We're talking about a field of rational inquiry, in which he is employing the kind of logical thinking, training, and knowledge, that he brought to physics. Hence, considering the great unlikelihood his suddenly becoming a pseudoscientist, AND considering the fact that no one has shown that parapsychology IS a pseudoscience, AND the fact that there is nothing even resembling an agreement or consensus among scientists that it IS a pseudoscience, THEN to brand a man like Josephson as a pseudoscientist is merely a form of slander. Argument from authority is not about offering proof of anything, it's about reasonable, provisional probabilities in the face of controversy and uncertainty. Joseph Rowe (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Joseph Rowe (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is becoming more and more silly and irrelevant.
 * "Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided" does not matter at all. Things do not become true by people believing in it - this is argumentum ad populum.
 * You think Josephson is brilliant, others think he was lucky. (I have no opinion on this.) You compute a "probability" starting from your opinion, others (including me) know that probabilities do not work that way.
 * And parapsychology is not "a field of rational inquiry", it is based on the assumption "if cannot explain it, it must be something unknown to science" which is logically equivalent to of " is so super smart, understands everything except those things science does not know yet". This reasoning is a special case of argument from ignorance, and it is obviously a consequence of having an inordinately high opinion of some people, bordering on deification. Typically, scientists are aware that they are as fallible as the next guy, and are therefore not impressed when the next guy finds something he cannot figure out. This is one reason parapsychology makes most scientists shrug in a bored way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"This is becoming more and more silly and irrelevant." You said it. Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

First academic institution
This article claims "In 1911, Stanford University became the first academic institution in the United States to study extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (PK) in a laboratory setting."

It's also implying that modern parapsychology (Rhine era) started in United States. However, it seems to have missed European point of view (I guess most of editors are from US?). Sydney Alrutz from Uppsala university (Sweden) founded there Institute for psychology in 1909, where he did tests with telepathy under hypnosis. Some times ago this information was available in Uppsala university website, article which was covering history of psychology department. Now that article seems to be removed, but there is still several other reliable sources, which descibe his studies. There was also similar studies outside of academia before Rhine, such as in laboratory of Floris Jansen.

There was discussion above about whether or not parapsychology is pseudoscience. I don't take any part of that, other than noticing that major fource withing skeptical movement, Chris French, doesn't consider parapsychology as such. However, I couldn't resist to count up factually incorrect claims or implications people submitted there, because it is sometimes used as an indicator of pseudoscientist, and ironically I counted Hob Gadling as number one.

And second, I cannod understand when someone says: "Wikipedia is not the place where we do our own research, and investigate whether claims are true, or supportable. We simply represent what the sources say."

I think this cannot be literally true, otherwise Wikipedia would be rather unreliable source in some cases. Reliable source is something which most likely have correct information. But not always, there is no absolute truhts in there. Not even Skeptic's dictionary, which is not even peer-reviewed. That's why some homework is also required, if one aims to have reliable encyclopedia, instead of just making as much noise (edits) as possible in order to pick up some wiki-honor. Without proper homework, Wikipedia would end up with incorrect information from so called "reliable sources" which turn out not to be so reliable after all. Of course, those errors can be fixed by someone who has done their homework - that's the whole point of Wikipedia - but that process can be also stalled if the experts get too often offented without reason, and thus they find better things to do than bothering themselves with people who are so reluctant to use their help.

91.159.178.92 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Good comment on older European laboratories before American studying the parapsychology - this does need to be mentioned on the article. As for your other stuff you misunderstand Wikipedia policies. See WP:WINARS and WP:Fringe. TreeTrailer (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I just hope that not everyone will base their actions on formal rules only. Every rule needs to be applied in to action, and it is better to do some homeworks while doing so. Undereducated people make poor decisions. Wikipedia is collected effort, but it is still however based on individual actions. And individuals should be encouraced to do their homework, instead of embracing so called "reliable sources". For example, I am tend to believe that there is much more expertice behind Journal of parapsychology than Skeptic's dictionary, when we talk about history of the field.


 * I said I won't take part on discussion whether or not parapsychology is pseudoscience. But since last discussion was closed, I think I have now responsibility to say something about that too, even when it is going off-topic from the historical details. Otherwise the actual problem goes "out of sight, out of mind" -mode. In pseudoscience section, one major reference is Finnish philosopher Raimo Tuomela. His article has been published in Finnish here, although I am not sure he has edited it since the engish version, as this version was published three years after english one (and as Finnish version says, original version of the article was published in 1983, in Finnish). Because I don't have english version, I will comment some details from Finnish version.


 * 1) Tuomela's article has been published about 30 years ago. Since that time, I believe there has been major developments within both parapsychology and philosophy of demarcation problem (between science and pseudoscience). And information even from reliable sources can get and often do get outdated at some point, it is better to use more updated sources. 2) It was only an essay, not peer-reviewed study on this topic. 3) One of incorrect/outdated information is when he said "Parapsychology is a largely isolated research area", which seems not so much true anymore as it was 30 years ago, since parapsychology seems to have now significantly stronger connections with consciousness studies, transpersonal psychology, anomalistic psychology and maybe also thanatology. 4) In the article, after previous claim he said that Parapsychology is based partly on mythical ideas (which was one of his characteristics of pseudoscience), and justified his claim by saying "Myös parapsykologiasta löytyvä ajassa taaksepäin suuntautuvan kausaation ajatus – esimerkiksi unista ennustaminen – on selvästi epätieteellistä, myytteihin nojaavaa ajattelua" (meaning: also idea of retrocausality is clearly unscientific idea, based on myths). However, idea retrocausality is not entirelery pseudoscience and not based purely on myths as it is pointed out in Wikipedia article. Actually nowdays considerations about retrocausality within parapsychology seems to be based on ideas from physics, and experiments are justified by speculations called thought experiments, instead of questions related to precognition alone. I am not saying this is the good thing to connect two such a vague ideas in order to justify experiments, but I am questioning if Tuomela made his homework properly, because some of those ideas about retrocausality were around already 30 years ago. 5) Raimo Tuomela DID NOT use his claims to summarize why the majority of scientists consider parapsychology to be a pseudoscience. He doesn't consider scientific concencus at all, instead he is only evaluating if parapsychology is pseudoscience, by using his own expertice as a philosopher. 6) However, Tuomela said "Kaiken kaikkiaan on olemassa hyviä perusteita pitää parapsykologiaa pseudotieteenä. En kuitenkaan aivan yhtyisi Alcockiin ja moniin muihin, jotka pitävät kaikkea parapsykologiaa pseudotieteenä – sanoisin mieluummin, että osa parapsykologiasta on esitieteellistä." To put it short, he said that unlike some fellow skeptics, he was considering part of the parapsychology to be protoscientific (this is also indicated in this quote "...can at best qualify as prescientific.."). In other words, whether or not scientific concensus (or majority of scientists) is considering parapsychology as a pseudoscience nowadays, clearly the major source used to justify this claim is not one of them. 91.159.178.92 (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

'Empathy' is a psychic phenomenon?
I've removed empathy from the introductory paragraph because it's an emotion, not a psychic phenomenon. -- Meticulo (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Muckrock article on NSA memos
Without historical context, I'm not sure what it could be used for. It certainly doesn't belong in the lede to juxtapose that most scientists don't take parapsychology seriously. --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/feb/17/nsas-psychic-nuke/

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Parapsychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/AirReport.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131116114021/http://www.northampton.ac.uk/research/psychology/the-centre-for-the-study-of-anomalous-psychological-processes-csapp to http://www.northampton.ac.uk/research/psychology/the-centre-for-the-study-of-anomalous-psychological-processes-csapp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124055506/http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaFreeResp010.pdf to http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaFreeResp010.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103081111/http://drsmorey.org/bibtex/upload/Hyman%3A2010.pdf to http://drsmorey.org/bibtex/upload/Hyman%3A2010.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012170839/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223410/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html to http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012170834/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520125500/http://www.videojug.com/interview/anomalistic-psychology-2 to http://www.videojug.com/interview/anomalistic-psychology-2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112045008/http://findarticles.com/p/search?qt=parapsychology to http://findarticles.com/p/search?qt=parapsychology

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it unsatisfying that "apparitions" was the only sub-field of parapsychology that was mentioned in the intro but not discussed within it's own section (or at all). I'd really like to see it get similar treatment to the other categories. "ghost" and "spirit" activity has arguably the strongest body of evidence of all the sub-fields and the best potential to collect evidence. Many people have witnessed "physically impossible" occurrences connected to people who have passed away (myself included- a professional biologist and chemist). The tendency to keep these experiences to oneself is very strong and I suspect a significant ratio of the population has experienced paranormal activity but never talks about it. I haven't told anyone beside my wife about mine for instance and likely never will. I understand that the ease of faking theses types of experiences on demand and the financial and social benefits of doing so seriously damage the legitimacy of serious research.

174.28.106.122 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Parapsychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626192424/http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html to http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824232035/http://parapsych.org/glossary_l_r.html to http://parapsych.org/glossary_l_r.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150223112644/http://www.spr.ac.uk/page/past-presidents-parapsychology to http://www.spr.ac.uk/page/past-presidents-parapsychology
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221213451/http://www.parapsych.org/history_of_pa.html to http://www.parapsych.org/history_of_pa.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626192424/http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html to http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html
 * Added tag to http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/4/823
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810173433/http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Alcock-editorial.pdf to http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Alcock-editorial.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810173433/http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Alcock-editorial.pdf to http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Alcock-editorial.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223348/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html to http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Remote viewing
The section on remote viewing could note that remote viewing is also known as clairvoyance. Vorbee (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Survival hypothesis
Survival hypothesis links to here but is not mentioned yet. It should be, and not in "Modern era", because it was written about in the 19th century, s. Emil Mattiesen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Opening of article
The opening of this article is far too biassed. It seems to have been typed by people determined to write parapsychology off as a pseudo-science.Vorbee (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * By our book parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, just imagine creating an article about an area of research and not even explaining what the researchers claim. Meanwhile there's several sentences saying what others outside the area of research think about it. Biased and vandalism.--Amirgown (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Your "book" is open to editing though. So it sounds more like it's the opinion of a few people forcing their beliefs onto the policy of the encyclopedia. There's already several sentences saying what skeptics believe about it, but not even half a sentence about what the researchers claim (while stating that it's a claim) is allowed. Just the kind of stuff you would expect from Christian absolutists, not skeptics. Pretty sure there's a more well-known, important and central policy of Wikipedia that says you have to at least explain both points of view, even if one is incorrect.--Amirgown (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We do have to explain all notable POVs, they just get described according to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is savagely biased. Parapsychology comes under "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience" from WP:FRINGE Many of the problems the article has are caused by the fact that a lot of the material is cited by people who are not parapsychologists or even psychologists, but rather those in the physical sciences or professional skeptics. There is also a lot of stuff cited that is not peer reviewed but is opinion. A good start might be to work towards eliminating non peer reviewed stuff and opinion stuff. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:ARBPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * please see WP:FRINGE and even WP:PARITY. In this case, the opinion of a particular psychologist could be mentioned if notable enough, but as that persons' opinion, not as reflecting consensus.  An indication of notability would be reviews of his work by third parties, which would be the ones we should reflect.  I've noticed the same addition at another article and changed "found" to "wrote" to mitigate the issue, but it's possible that it doesn't deserve mention if there's no coverage by independent sources.  To claim that his views changed the consensus of psychologists, we'd need an independent source too.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Why is this relevant? Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Because the terms used by Wikipedians are defined intersubjectively and do not mean what you have stated above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Parapsychology is 100% WP:FRINGE, it is not an "alternative theoretical formulation". This is how WP:FRINGE has been consistently interpreted in this respect. If you don't believe me start a thread at WP:FTN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Undo of recent revert
The reason I undid this revert is because, (a) as well as reverting for its stated reason it undid other edits that were useful e.g. re the citation by Smee. Although I do think the citations by Smee are a bit of a problem. i.e. why are we including citations written by a biologist in an article about psychology? I find your assertion that the work of one of the world's leading parapsychologists, who is professor of psychology at a university and has published in numerous reputable journals is a fringe view untenable. Moreover you also removed all mention of him and his work form the body of the article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The claim that he overturned the long-standing consensus is just too cocky, find other ways to express it. As it is stated, it's hybris. He is still WP:FRINGE by our book. Besides, this isn't an article in psychology, it is much more like occultism and esotericism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not simply continue to revert without arriving at a consensus on this page. Moreover you are reverting other edits that are not in question. The fact that, in your opinion, the claim is cocky or hubris has nothing to do with it. The statement is from a highly reputable, peer reviewed publication. Being as Cardeña is being published in as reputable a journal as American Psychologist his work does clearly not fall under WP:FRINGE, which says "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". While I will agree with you that parapsychology is often tarred with the same brush as occultism it is, once again, not your opinion that is relevant here. That papers on parapsychology are published in American Psychologist, which is the official peer reviewed academic journal of the American Psychological Association, clearly demonstrates that the academy considers parapsychology as a branch of psychology.
 * Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hogwash, see WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Rather than a broad and uncivil reply perhaps you could be more specific? Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Has somebody won Randi's million dollars? Guessed so. Parapsychologists say: we don't know what it works, we don't know what is made of, it has no practical applications, but once in a while we get significant results. I could throw the dice all day long and get significant results once in a while, it means nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Randi's prize is not relevant. What is relevant are peer reviewed scientific articles, like those I have cited. Please address exact edits and sources that you wish to contend rather than just stating your opinion. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See Pseudoscience. What did parapsychology discover, except occasional significant results? Where is its smoking gun that the field is worth anything? Randi's prize has not been won because nobody has paranormal powers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the worth of a field is not determined by the number of papers ("[Cardeña] has published more than 250 journal articles and book chapters"). And quoting a definition from another encyclopedia is not how we do it here, especially not a definition that cannot be tested - how can you know that a "transfer of information or energy" "cannot be explained by known physical or biological mechanisms"? Not by trying to explain it and failing, because the failure could be because of your own stupidity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Got to agree with here - notwithstanding the Randi prize (which is largely a publicity thing anyway) - being an academic is not proof against holding WP:FRINGE positions, nor is being published occasionally. Parapsychology is widely seen, outside parapsychological circles as a WP:FRINGE discipline and as such, treating it as a legitimate science in the lede is a violation of WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Granted, Randi's million dollar challenge ended years ago, but parapsychology is clearly fringe. --tronvillain (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I heard, JREF is still open to grant the prize to select candidates, but no longer admits just anyone who is interested. Oh, no, it ended in 2015. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Still, there are a variety of prizes for evidence of the paranormal that still exist. --tronvillain (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hob Gadling, can you please state exactly which text you are referring to about the definition? I added a cited definition from a university textbook. This is an acceptable source. Re your question about how can I know? I don't know. It's not about if I know, or if you know, it's about relying on the research of experts. Thus we cite their work. If we want an opposing view we cite the work of other experts who disagree.


 * Simonm223, WP:FRINGE says "the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". This is designed to make sure that non experts are not deciding if or not a thing is fringe. This is why we cite experts within a given field and not people outside of it. If you think its fringe then find a citation from an expert that supports this view rather than just stating your opinion. This page cites a lot of people who are not experts in this field and a lot are skeptics and it has an undue emphasis on criticisms. You say being published occasionally doesn't mean its not fringe and Hob Gadling says the fact that he has so many papers published is irrelevant... He can't win either way.


 * My main point here is that I added cited information that was by experts who were published in mainstream, peer reviewed journals and in academically published books and it has been removed because of the opinions of wikipedia editors. This is not how we do things at wikipedia. Maybe parapsychology is fringe but this doesn't mean that cited information by experts in reliable sources can just be removed. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "I added a cited definition from a university textbook" - An encyclopedia that just quotes the definition from another encyclopedia is a bad one. Usually we do not use tertiary sources, but secondary ones.
 * "your question about how can I know?" - I did not use "you" referring to you specifically, but in the sense of "a person". The definition in question is a stupid one because it is not practically applicable. If WP takes it at face value, WP embraces the parapsychologists' assumption that they are smart enough to say "I cannot explain this, therefore this cannot be explained".
 * When I say "[Cardeña] has published more than 250 journal articles and book chapters" is not relevant, I mean it is bad style to say that in the article. It sounds like boasting - no, it is boasting. Counting papers is an extremely silly way of deciding a scientific question. What is in the papers matters. Do the papers prove anything? Are they well made? We can quote secondary sources talking about that. Also, why pick Cardeña for this treatment and not any other parapsychologist? What's special about him? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * More per policies than editor opinions. — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry yes, it was an encyclopedia not a text book. However (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources) "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited". I thought it was better to have a cited definition from an academic source rather than a catch all definition that is widely variant from the academic sources. Do you disagree?

Re "transfer of information or energy that cannot be explained by known physical or biological mechanism". I don't know how they arrived at this definition. But it's not my job here to know that. It's my job to cite a reputable, academic source, which is what I did. However if you want me to speculate, oh wait, talk pages aren't for discussions about the topic...

Maybe it's bad style to say "Cardeña has published more than 250 journal articles and book chapters" but that doesn't mean that all the information about him in the article should just be removed. BTW that came from his wikipedia page so that's not my bad style its another editor's. I was trying to add some info about him to contextualise the quote by him I included, not prove any point. Seems like a good thing to do. If you don't think the style is good then please edit it. I did this because I was citing one of his papers specifically. It is a meta study, commenting on the state of the field in general, this year. So it's a current and relevant wide ranging survey of the field published by an extremely reputable journal this year. That's why I chose it. What is in the paper that matters? Well only that he said, in a peer reviewed reputable journal that "The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines". Let me repeat that. He is saying, in a peer reviewed, reputable journal, in up to date article, which is by an expert with a long history of publishing in this exact subject matter, who is presently employed at a reputable institution, that there is evidence of psi effects, seems pretty important to me. Just what everyone has been asking for really. Good solid academic evidence. Yet it was also just deleted from the article completely on the basis of an editor's opinion. This is exactly why I say this article is biased. Morgan Leigh | Talk 13:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I mean it could also be read as a scathing rebuke of psychology, which, considering the Replication Crisis, might not be entirely un-earned. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But joking aside, WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:PROFRINGE still very much apply. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It could totally be read as a critique of psychology. But the article expands on that statement and makes it clear that that is not what he is saying. He explains how parapsychology gets results at the same rates of statistical significance as other fields and still gets derided. I challenge you to read Cardeña's paper and see if you still think its an extraordinary claim. But even if it is the breadth of his review is amazing. He does cite multiple sources which is what WP:EXTRAORDINARY asks for "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What the abstract says is "The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines", but what does the actual article say and on what page does it say it? --tronvillain (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The abstract is part of the paper. I put a direct quote from the paper with a page number. I would have put more from the paper but considering I only put one quote and this resulted in every single edit I made, including biographical information about the author, getting reverted I didn't get a chance to do that yet.Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, one psychologist opining that evidence for psychic powers is strong/significant/should be recognized does not meet WP:EXTRAORDINARY for purposes of overturning the longstanding majority scientific consensus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and we'd need an independent reliable source claiming that, — Paleo Neonate  – 17:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not just one psychologist trying to overturn a long held consensus. This paper is a meta review, which means it reviews meta analyses, which is an effective way to review a field. In this case he reviews 20 meta analyses. He is actually showing what the current consensus is. He starts off by examining the exact question of why people think parapsychology is not credible and shows how the field has a lot of good science that has yielded good results yet still gets derided. Even French (French, C. (2001). Weird science at Goldsmiths. Skeptic, 14, 7– 8.) who is a skeptic says “Most psychologists could reasonably be described as uninformed skeptics, a minority could reasonably be described as prejudiced bigots where the paranormal is concerned”. Cardeña is a reliable source. American Psychologist is a reputable, peer reviewed journal.

You're begging the question that parapsychology would be psychology. The current consensus in epistemology is that science cannot study the supernatural: science is agnostic about God, angels and spirits. Here is more:

I think Kitchen comes up so often in these sorts of discussions because he's a serious, credible scholar on Egypt but super-maximalist on ancient Israel and the Bible. It's like a trained rocket scientist opposing evolution -- the rhetorical gambit used is to transfer credibility from one field onto another one. That and his avoidance of full-blown Young-Earth-Creationism can create an impression that his works on the Bible are somehow mainstream. Alephb (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not begging the question. Parapsychology is psychology. The American Psychological Association thinks it is (https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/psyccritiques-spotlight/issue-11.aspx) The wikipedia psychology project thinks it is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_psychology). Many universities who do parapsychology research think it is. Parapsychology is not about God, angels or spirits. Parapsychology is "the study of purported psi phenomena using the scientific method," (Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), p664.). The present definition in the lede of this article is at odds with the definition of the field given by actual experts. I tried to update the definition with a cited source but it got reverted... Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In general, respectable scientific journals don't publish paranormal research, which is precisely why parapsychologists complain they're like Galileo facing Inquisition. See e.g. : parapsychologists as martyred by peer-review. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * And yet when I tried to update this article with good research published in a peer reviewed, respectable journal you reverted it. You can't have it both ways. The problem here is not one of trying to overturn a consensus but of addressing bias. It is hard for us to adjust when things we have long held to be true have changed. Germ theory was proposed by Marcus von Plenciz in 1762 but "Such views were held in disdain, however, and Galen's miasma theory remained dominant among scientists and doctors." Germ_theory_of_disease It wasn't until the late 1800s, when technology caught up with the theory that it was accepted. Think how many people died in the mean time. That is over 100 years until people were able to get over their prejudices and come to terms with facts. I am hoping to be able to make some progress in bringing this article into line with actual science and ridding it of the many non peer reviewed, non expert opinions that are currently being used to substantiate unwarranted prejudiced and bias in less time than that.


 * The paper you cited gets to the core of the problem. "showing an interest in parapsychology is hazardous to one’s professional health, including the almost nonexistent funding opportunities, the hurdles in getting an academic job or, having obtained it, in advancing, or the constant swaying to avoid the constant, and most often uninformed and groundless, barrage of critical darts. There are already general discussions on the intellectual suppression of identified groups and alternative positions by those with power and a  vested interest (e.g., Martin, Baker, Manwell, & Pugh 1986), including the specific case of parapsychology (e.g., Hess 1992, McClenon 1984)." Moreover he goes on to say "a quaint version of the idea that publishing parapsychology might bring about terrible events is exemplified by the bombastic opinion of cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, who wrote that a peer-reviewed set of studies finding support for precognition (Bem 2011) would have implications that “would necessarily send all of science as we know it crashing to the ground . . . [and] spell the end of science as we know it” (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/06/the-esp-study-when-science-goes-psychic/a-cutoff-for-craziness). He also remarked that psi phenomena would go against the “laws of physics” despite not being a physicist, and called parapsychology researchers “crackpots” (the itch to insult may be even more peremptory than that to censor). In contrast, actual physicists including University of London cosmologist Bernard Carr and Lawrence Livermore Lab physicist Henry Stapp have developed models that accommodate psi phenomena within physics, with neither of them claiming that if their proposals are right science will “go crashing in flames” (cf. Kelly, Crabtree, & Marshall 2015). In their support of research on parapsychology, they have followed physicists of the stature of Bohm, Bohr, Einstein, Planck, and Pauli, who either proposed physics models of psi phenomena or were at the very least open to its scientific inquiry."


 * I shall reiterate that we should be addressing my various edits instead of only airing your opinions that parapsychology is bogus in response to cited sources. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to remind you that this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions as you have been warned about that. By comparing parapsychology with germ theory you make a big policy mistake, which is explained at WP:BALL. Let's say that there is a correlation between electricity consumption in Bijlmer and the flow rate of Niagara Falls. What does that prove? Nothing, I guess. It's just a spurious statistical correlation having no plausible causal mechanism. So, we have causal claims that defy everything else from sciences, and causal claims which don't defy most of established science. See organized skepticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in my comments that comes under WP:BALL. "Individual scheduled or expected future events" - Nope. "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" - Nope. "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history"" - Nope. "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors" - Nope. But I guess you are referring to "Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." I have not made any such projection in the article. I have made an analogy on the talk page in a discussion about why the article should be edited. You are grasping at straws rather than addressing my actual edits. I note you have also edited my talk page with the discretionary sanctions thing. Why are you trying so hard to find a reason to prevent my edits with policy other than addressing the actual edits? Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "I'm the bad guy?" he asks in disbelief. From Falling Down. You are acting against the WP:RULES, namely trying to undo the WP:FRINGE status of parapsychology. No conscientious editor will allow you to succeed. The germ theory can be seen as valid only in retrospect: Plenciz's contemporaries lacked evidence for the existence of germs. Once the evidence became available, the germ theory won. Not before that! All parapsychology has are correlations. No plausible causal mechanism and no smoking gun. Perhaps I did not made myself clear enough: science is organized skepticism. If he/she does not convince the skeptics, the scientist has failed. Einstein did not bicker about scientific skepticism: he was not a maverick, but became one of the leaders of mainstream science (i.e. after evidence for his theories became available, before that he was popular in world press, but widely doubted among scientists). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to undo the fringe status of parapsychology. I am trying to add text cited by peer reviewed articles. I edited to achieve a more neutral tone. You are the one who removed cited information. From WP:PRESERVE "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You're the only one here who fails to understand the points made about WP:FRINGE, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY in respect to your past edits. And you certainly don't understand why our article is already compliant with WP:NPOV. "Biased" is not an argument: we're biased for mainstream science (aka organized skepticism) and we're proud of it, this is Wikipedia! Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a consensus about the inclusion of Psychology sidebar in the article? If yes, where should the sidebar be placed? I removed it after reviewing this discussion and noting that the sidebar has no mention of parapsychology. I was reverted (diff) with spurious claims about Index of psychology articles and Portal:Psychology (particularly spurious due to WP:OSE). Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Mainstream psychologists regard parapsychology with disdain. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd remove it, if the article is not in the sidebar (and I see no good reason it should be despite the similar names) the sidebar should not be in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We can count me as thinking the sidebar should be removed and Morgan Leigh as thinking it should be kept. My very quick read of this section suggests that the others who have commented here also favor removal, although some of the comments are unclear to me. Pings in case I have misread the situation: Alephb + Hob Gadling + LuckyLouie + PaleoNeonate + Simonm223 + Tronvillain. Does anyone other than Morgan Leigh believe the sidebar belongs in this article? Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon/One against many. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly I'm in favour of removing it given that I did once already. Thanks to Morgan Leigh for pointing out some other articles and a portal that may need some attention. Being on the psychology portal is meaningless to the discussion though - the vast majority of articles there also don't have a psychology sidebar. Similarly, being in the index of psychology articles also doesn't establish a need for the sidebar given that it's as broad as "Articles related to psychology." --tronvillain (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly more concerned about WP:PROFRINGE content being inserted into the lede but yeah. The psychology sidebar doesn't belong on a page about supernatural beliefs, even if they're supernatural beliefs that are often held by psychologists. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Parapsychology is not a supernatural belief. It is the scientific study of psi phenomena. "Parapsychology can be defined as the study of purported psi phenomena using the scientific method" - Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. "A branch of psychology that studies a group of phenomena collectively known as psi, a term referring to the transfer of information or energy that cannot be explained by known physical or biological mechanisms" - Kihlstrom, J. (2000). Parapsychology. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 43-46). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association." "Parapsychology is defined as ‘the scientific study of the capacity attributed to some individuals to interact with their environment by means other than the recognised sensorimotor channels’." https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/research-overview/ (University of Edinburgh). "Parapsychology is the scientific and scholarly study of three kinds of unusual events (ESP, mind-matter interaction, and survival), which are associated with human experience. The existence of these phenomena suggest that the strict subjective/objective dichotomy proposed by the old paradigm (see below) may not be quite so clear-cut as once thought. Instead, these phenomena may be part of a spectrum of what is possible, with some events and experiences occasionally falling between purely subjective and purely objective. We call such phenomena "anomalous" because they are difficult to explain within current scientific models." - "https://parapsych.org/articles/36/76/what_is_parapsychology.aspx", "The term parapsychology refers to the scientific study of certain paranormal phenomena, referred to as "Psi" phenomena." - "http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Parapsychology (cur | prev) Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:01, 5 October 2018‎ Morgan Leigh (UTC)
 * The existing definition is essentially equivalent to those definitions - it's just more explicit and using less jargon. --tronvillain (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Except it doesn't mention science or psi once despite these sources doing so. I have provided reliable sources that say its science (see below about the reliability of these sources) so please explain why we can't put the terms science or psi in the definition?Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Parapsychology topics are not included in the psychology sidebar for obvious reasons; the sidebar may therefore also be misplaced on this article. Although an encyclopedia covers more than short definitions, sometimes a dictionary definition also helps: "n: phenomena that appear to contradict physical laws and suggest the possibility of causation by mental processes [syn: {psychic phenomena}, {psychic phenomenon}]" (Wordnet).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So why is parapsychology on the psychology project page? They went to all the trouble of making it a featured article in psychology and everything... Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A portal isn't a project, and becoming a featured article at some point has no necessary connection to a project. Literally all this establishes is that someone tagged the page as "of interest to Wikiproject Psychology." It's also tagged as being of interest to Wikiprojects Occult and Paranormal. --12:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Parapsychology is a pseudo-scientific attempt to study supposed supernatural phenomena, as such it is a supernatural belief system. The issue here is that literally all the other engaged editors are telling you that we can't categorize Parapsychology as a science on the basis of the evidence you provided, and you're refusing to hear that. As for why it's a featured article on the psychology project page? Well, in my case, it's because I didn't know that attempt was being made, otherwise I would have opposed it. But a past consensus decision never requires future consensus makes the same decision. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not that I am not hearing you. I am hearing you. You are all stating your opinions most vociferously. But they are just opinions. And I am citing sources. It's that you are failing to recognise when I cite reliable sources to counter your, and others', uncited, biased opinions. I just gave you five sources that say parapsychology is a science and you aren't hearing that. I've got more... Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources are WP:FRINGE and do not pass WP:EXTRAORDINARY: your sources cannot overturn the long-standing consensus that parapsychology is bunk. That has to change in real world before it changes inside Wikipedia. And the attempt to redefine "supernatural" as "psi" is simply pathetic. E.g. all I could find on Google Books for the keywords "martini coon mitterer parapsychology" is The parapsychologist's lament by Alcock, J.E. (2010). Bibliography: Ray Hyman, Parapsychology Achilles Heel: Persistent Inconsistency, pp. 45-46 in Stanley Krippner and Harris L. Friedman, Debating Psychic Experience, Praeger, 2010. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources meet WP:RS as follows:

Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. This source is a peer reviewed article form an academic journal. See American_Psychologist. It is a secondary source (see Identifying_reliable_sources "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper.") as it reviews other research.

Kihlstrom, J. (2000). Parapsychology. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 43-46). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. This source is an encyclopedia. (see Identifying_reliable_sources "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited.) It is published by the American Psychological Association, which is, "the largest scientific and professional organization of psychologists in the United States" See American_Psychological_Association

https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/research-overview/ (University of Edinburgh) This source is from a university research institute at University of Edinburgh, which is "ranked 18th in the world by the 2019 QS World University Rankings. (Best universities in Europe 2018". Times Higher Education.)

https://parapsych.org/articles/36/76/what_is_parapsychology.aspx This source is from The Parapsychological Association which is, "an international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of psi (or 'psychic') experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition. The primary objective of the PA is to achieve a scientific understanding of these experiences. First established in 1957, the PA has been an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) since 1969." The fact that it is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science who are the publishers of Science means it is a reputable science based professional organisation akin to the American Psychological Association.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Parapsychology This source is an encyclopedia. (see Identifying_reliable_sources "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited.)

Please explain how you can defend your position that these sources are not reliable. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS has been satisfied—one editor wants to include the sidebar and many don't. The issue was discussed at WP:NPOVN with no support for the sidebar. For Wikipedia, that means the issue is resolved. Try raising the matter again in 12 months. There is no requirement that everyone be happy with the result of a disagreement and there is no need to spend more time debating. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the sidebar. I'm talking about the definition in the lede. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_World_Encyclopedia implies that Morgan is making pathetic jokes about WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok so you have a problem with the New World Encyclopedia. But you you have done an interesting thing here. New World Encyclopedia is in the same category as rational wiki. It's an online wiki that anyone can edit that comes from a particular ideological space. Why should rationwiki be taken any more seriously than New World Encyclopedia? Regardless of this that leaves four other sources. What's wrong with them?
 * You'll notice that no one's attempting to use RationalWiki as a source in the article. Anyway, the New World Encyclopedia entry was originally copied from Wikipedia in 2007 (check its history) - it is in no sense a credible source. --tronvillain (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Morgan Leigh. The problem is, you are suggesting that non-WP:FRIND sources (and a dictionary definition with no context) be used to contradict a preponderance of independent reliable sources that have analyzed the subject in depth and from arm's length. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @LuckyLouie The problem is that I have provided peer reviewed sources that don't agree with editors' preconceptions. Please explain how each of the sources I have cited do not comply with WP:RS or how they could be described as WP:FRIND. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Disputes are common at Wikipedia. The only way an argument can be resolved is for people to stop responding so the issue fades away. We may all be wrong, but that's the way it works, sorry. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the way to resolve disputes is to use the dispute resolution process, not to just throw our hands up in horror and walk away. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to bite:

Try again. jps (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cardeña, E. (2018). -- Fails WP:Independent source since this is a WP:FRINGE subjection. See WP:FRIND.
 * Kihlstrom, J. (2000). Parapsychology. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 43-46). -- I need to read this one. I might try WP:Resource Request. Do you have a quote?
 * https://koestlerunit.wordpress.com/research-overview/ -- wordpress.com self-published source by a WP:FRINGE supporter.
 * https://parapsych.org/articles/36/76/what_is_parapsychology.aspx -- Total WP:FRINGE source. Doesn't even pretend to be impartial.
 * http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Parapsychology -- Not reputable. Biased source with a goal of promoting pseudoscience. See.


 * Cardeña's article, is a peer reviewed article from American Psychologist. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal's 2016 impact factor is 6.681, ranking it 7th out of 128 journals in the category "Psychology, Multidisciplinary." See - American_Psychologist There is no conceivable way this can be considered a fringe journal. Incredibly we as wikipedia editors do not get to choose to cite some articles from a given journal but not others. A journal is either a reliable source or it isn't. American Psychologist is presently cited a total of five times over at the psychology article. I'd love to see what would happen if you went over to that article and removed those citations saying its a fringe journal.


 * Kihlstrom, do I have a quote for what? I already quoted the definition from it.


 * The Koestler Unit is from a page at The University of Edinburgh. It has the University of Edinburgh logo right at the top of the page. Pages at universities are ipso facto not self published. This page meets none of the criteria at Identifying_and_using_self-published_works. If you think it does please say exactly which ones.


 * The Parapsychological Association does not meet the criteria for fringe, which says "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The association represents it's field. The fact that it is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science means it is regarded as scientific by the wider community.


 * I'd like to remind you to that it is required of wikipedia editors to be polite. Goading editors is not polite. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you have just demonstrated an inability to work in this subject with the above commentary which is essentially WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As this is under discretionary sanctions, I am inclined to say that someone should report you to WP:AE. A topic ban might be appropriate. jps (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, the Koestler Unit is not a page at the University of Edinburgh. The Alzheimer Scotland Dementia Research Centre has a university page and the Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology (CCACE) has a university page, but the Koestler Parapsychology Unit has a Wordpress page and not a university page. --tronvillain (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, Cardeña cannot be at the same time right that parapsychology is mainstream science and that parapsychologists get martyred by peer-reviewers. He cannot eat his cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Refactoring this page
User:Morgan Leigh I have reverted your previous edit to this page, as you have made major changes to your own and others posts.

Please explain why? Thanks. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 22:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please explain how adding replies to comments, correctly indenting them, not removing any text and not altering a word of any other editor's text is "Major changes to your own and other's posts? Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't "correctly indenting them." The way you indented implied that Guy Macon's comment was in reply to the comment you added. See WP:THREAD.--tronvillain (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:RTP. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 00:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You are correct that my indenting was out by one level. I do apologise. This hardly constitutes "major changes". I have reinstated text that was removed at the end. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Full protection
I've fully protected the article for two days to end the current content dispute/edit war - please use this time to discuss changes. Once the protection lapses, further disruptive editing or edit warring will result in blocks. Thanks - TNT 💖 11:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Recently reverted edits
"However in 2014 nearly one hundred academics signed a statement to the effect that they were convinced that the case for psi phenomena had already been made."

This is a hallmark of pseudoscience. Creationists, anti-relativists, and climate change deniers use such signed lists. So, this sentence alone should make anybody suspicious of parapsychology even without further knowledge of the rookie mistakes that have been made there, such as multiple testing. But those lists should not be mentioned in the article because their pseudoscientific character is not obvious to the naive reader. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I contend that you are removing information from a cited source based on your opinion. Because it is your opinion that this is a hallmark of pseudoscience does not alter the fact that is an objectively true thing that actually happened and that is relevant to the article and that has a cited source. It is not our job as editors to decide what a hypothetical naive reader might or might not understand. We should provide all the information from cited sources that we can find and leave it up to the reader from there on. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is quite a cheap line of reasoning. I could easily turn it around and say that you select specific things from the available literature, based on your opinion. So, your reasoning cancels with equal reasoning on the other scale, and you are where you started.
 * Actually, we do have to choose which parts are relevant for the article. To do so, we need to know what we are talking about. See WP:CIR. You call that knowledge "opinion". Probably you call your own opinions "knowledge".
 * "It is not our job as editors" - Yes, that is exactly our job as editors. We need to write in a way that readers understand the information we give them. If a sentence is apt to give the reader a wrong impression, we should not use that sentence. See WP:AUDIENCE says, "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible."
 * "We should provide all the information from cited sources that we can find" - Bullshit. If that were the case, all articles would be thousands of times longer than they are. We have to select content, we have to choose the important stuff and drop the unimportant stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, the recent edits apparently changed a quote from "most" to "many" - changing words in quotes from the original text is never acceptable. --tronvillain (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't realise that was quote. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

An edit summary was left asking, So if there aren't enough citations its "fail to meet extraordinary claim" but if there are many citations its massive undue weight? Dumping in lots of citations to parapsychologists and parapsychology sources claiming that psi is real is actually WP:UNDUE and not sufficient to overturn the longstanding consensus of independent sources that identify parapsychology as a pseudoscience. Sorry you feel that people are gaming the system against you, but that's not the case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Utts, is a statistician, published in a peer reviewed journal i.e. Statistical Science. Surely you have no objection to this source?


 * The rest are psychologists published in peer reviewed journals. Unless you can establish that these sources do not meet the criterion of reliable sources you can not reasonably remove them. You can contend that a thing is pseudoscience, but how does it prove it is not? By publishing in peer reviewed journals. If you want to not allow papers to be cited because you think they are pseudoscience, but they are published in reliable sources, you are second guessing the academy and censoring wikipedia. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, so here's the issue with Parapsychological meta-analyses: they're only as good as their data sets. If the studies they're based on are garbage, either because they're god-of-the-gaps type studies like "psychically influencing a RNG to be slightly less random than expected" or because they had flawed experimental design and were subsequently non-replicated, the meta-analysis becomes more of a measure of the belief of parapsychologists that they had been successful than a measure of the actual success of experiments. So I get that it's very popular for fans of the Psi myth to cite meta-analyses, but until those analyses are derived from high-quality and replicable experiments, they're going to remain junk studies, mathematically interesting but of no real-world relevance.Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying. However I reiterate that this is your opinion. You have not established that the sources I am citing are not reliable. I assert that they are. Moreover the very same journals they are published in are cited to support the sentence "Parapsychology has been criticised for continuing investigation despite being unable to provide convincing evidence for the existence of any psychic phenomena after more than a century of research" i.e. Blitz, David (1991). "The line of demarcation between science and nonscience: The case of psychoanalysis and parapsychology". New Ideas in Psychology. 9 (2): 163–170 and Bunge, Mario (1991). "A skeptic's beliefs and disbeliefs". New Ideas in Psychology. 9 (2): 131–149 are in the same journal as Beloff's. And Hyman, R. "Parapsychological research: A tutorial review and critical appraisal" (PDF). Retrieved 20 September 2008 is from Proceedings of the IEEE Volume: 74 Issue: 6 which is the same journal as Hastings. A journal is either reliable or not. One cannot cherry pick articles. To do so is to contend that one knows better than the editors of an academic journal what constitutes science and what does not. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's about WP:RS/AC and WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Published by a bona fide academic in a bona fide journal does not mean it isn't WP:FRINGE. Everyone can write fringe stuff. According to Cardeña parapsychology is being persecuted by the mainstream. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Even if something is fringe it doesn't mean you can just exclude it from the article. I refer you to WP:PARITY which says "Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources." Ergo if there is a claim made against parapsychology and it has two sources then two sources should be included with the other view. This is absolutely not the case in this article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see how WP:RS/AC applies because I haven't cited any sources that claim a majority view for parapsychology. Re WP:MAINSTREAM, it says "In many debates, the most popular view is different from the scholarly or scientific view. In such cases, Wikipedia simply depends on the most reliable sources to verify content, and Wikipedia relies on vetted academic sources to determine what the mainstream understanding of a topic is." The exact same sources I have cited are already in the article to support skeptical statements. How can you say these are not reliable sources when they defend it? Re WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." If these sources are good enough for criticism of parapsychology why are they not good enough to support it? Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If you mean the claim "Supernatural (aka psi) phenomena have been shown with the same certainty as the existence of electrons", that would have been front-page news in all newspapers from all countries. It wasn't. That's how we know. See WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It would be bigger news than Einstein was in his own time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Rather than answering my question you have made a spurious statement. I have never made such a claim, nor cited one. Please answer my question: If these sources are good enough for criticism of parapsychology why are they not good enough to support it? Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @MorganLeigh: here is your answer. In Wikipedia, reporting on levels of acceptance isn't quote-mining articles published by advocates in scholarly sources to defend marginal ideas (i.e. those long established by the majority as fringe or pseudoscientific) or make them sound like they have been unfairly treated or are now gaining significant support. Peer reviewed journals publish fringe ideas by credentialed individuals all the time: advocates who are biologists have published supportive papers on Bigfoot and Cryptozoology, advocates who are psychiatrists and psychlogists have published articles supportive of Reincarnation, advocates who are physicists have have published articles supportive of UFO conspiracy theories. Hell, dozens and dozens of papers supportive of Transcendental Meditation have shown up in peer reviewed journals thanks to its well organized advocacy. In other words, "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community." To help determine acceptance, we focus on scholarship published by independent and objective parties rather than by advocates. I hope this helps you understand why so many experienced editors are getting frustrated with your efforts to "balance" the parapsychology article. Also, I urge you to read WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE for why your actions could result in sanctions or blocks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I hear what you are saying. Likewise reporting on levels of acceptance isn't quote-mining articles published by critics in scholarly sources to criticise marginal ideas while excluding those who defend them. I refer you to reporting on levels of acceptance "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." This does not mean one can simply refuse to include the opinions of those in "the relevant academic field" which are published in reliable sources, especially when voices criticising the field from the exact same journals and academic presses have been included. Moreover at present the criticism of this field in this article comes from those outside of it. Why not include criticism from inside the field, which is surely much more relevant, as WP:FRINGE requires? I also note that cited sources supporting parapsychology from academics outside the field (which seems to be what you think independent means) i.e. mathematicians and statisticians were removed. If a field is to move from superstition to science it must publish its results in peer reviewed publications. If you never allow work cited in such publications any space to be included you are upholding a bias and not accepting that a field can improve. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Independent in this case means "not a parapsychologist". That would leave out Jessica Utts, as well as Lance Storm, Arthur Hastings, Patrizio Tressoldi, John Beloff, Stephen Braude and Etzel Cardeña. I think anyone can see they are definitely not objective regarding parapsychology. Also, I think you may have some novel interpretations of the WP:FRINGE guideline. It certainly does not advise us to look to marginalized fringe science and pseudoscience to provide objective information about itself. Put another way, you wouldn't use the opinion of a used car salesman to determine if a certain make and model of car on his lot was dependable, you'd seek a consumer product information service or an independent garage, or someone else who is not connected to the business.- LuckyLouie (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that anyone who is in any way associated with parapsychology just cannot be trusted. This indicates your bias. To contextualise this, consider if I tried to argue that a physicist was not an independent source on physics. Ludicrous right? Why is it different for parapsychology? I posit you will argue something like, because it is "marginalized fringe science and pseudoscience". Independent sources says "There are many instances of biased coverage by journalists, academics, and critics. Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance.".


 * You say "I think anyone can see they are definitely not objective", but according to WP:BIASED "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Which leads to WP:PARITY. Once again we are back at, if a source is good enough for criticism it is good enough for defense.


 * I have offered a compromise on sources, which no one has accepted, it seems nothing other than a complete acceptance of your views will do. We seem to be at an impasse. I remind you that I have never expressed any opinion,(because my opinion has nothing to do with it) as to the veracity or otherwise of the claims of parapsychology. I have only tried to add reliable sources. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * By "compromise", if you mean this edit, I think you know from reading the entire chapter (especially the final paragraph) that you have taken Hyman's quote dreadfully out of context. That isn't a compromise, that's misrepresenting a source to create a false balance. Also I think you have a mistaken idea of what WP:OR is. As editors we are tasked with evaluating the suitability of sources with an eye to clearly stating the relationship of fringe vs. mainstream ideas. Which is why we can't make a one-to-one comparison of parapsychologists to physicists. For example, there would be no need to assure that a physicist was an independent source if they were being used on Wikipedia to cite a mundane concept such as the laws of thermodynamics. But if the concept was quantum healing, certainly we'd want to evaluate the source to assure weight to the mainstream view. Yes, we seem to be at an impasse. And WP:EXHAUSTION is setting in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

First I'd like to thank you for engaging with me in a being polite and well reasoned way.

By compromise I am referring to here where Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical" was proposed as a source for criticism of parapsychology. I agreed to that source but my proposed source for balance was not agreed on. So I offered to find another source. No one even responded to this offer of compromise. I agree with what you say about physicists making claims with evidence not supported by most other physicists needing corroborating evidence. But that doesn't mean we would refuse to even include good, peer reviewed sources from other physicists when doing so.

I don't see how that quote is out of context. It is in a chapter about evaluating parapsychology. It is a relevant quote. In fact this quote forms part of the basis for his critique so it is quite relevant. When an academic writes good research they ideally strive to be fair. To this end they mention things that might not agree with their conclusions. That doesn't make those things any less true or citable. In law, if the prosecution finds evidence that supports the defense's case they have to hand it over to the defense. Its the same principle. The lede at present is hopelessly biased. Some WP:PARITY is required. You think this is exhausting? Try getting a PhD. This is easy in comparison. :) Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The lede is biased for mainstream science. Wikipedia is biased for mainstream science. Don't fight against this, you stand no chance of winning, see WP:SNOW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should reliable sources that defend parapsychology be excluded altogether?
Should sources that are reliable and support parapsychology be excluded altogether?

Despite an existing arbitration ruling here where it was found that, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.", editors are arguing that parapsychologists should not be cited at all because they are not mainstream.

Survey (Should reliable sources that defend parapsychology be excluded altogether?)
Support the proposition that reliable sources that defend parapsychology should be excluded altogether.


 * Support but hold the reliable sources to high standards. The strength of the source required should depend on the claim being made. As far as I can see this dispute is about the existential question of whether psi exists at all, which is something major enough to demand exquisitely reliable sources. I did not check every source in the discussion section below, but this paper in American Psychologist should qualify as exquisitely reliable: it's a high-impact, peer-reviewed academic journal, and it explicitly makes the claim that the evidence for psi cannot be readily explained away (but from the abstract, it doesn't explicitly claim psi exists either). This source would only not qualify if there're a lot of other equally-reliable sources that contradict this claim, in which case we can exclude it as fringe. Banedon (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the proposition that reliable sources that defend parapsychology should be excluded altogether.


 * Invalid RfC - too general. There are some legitimate studies (as opposed to the widespread fringe quackery in this subject area) on parapsychology - some of which might support some very weak evidence, most find nothing. Without a specific source/content to be discussed - the generality here is meaningless. We should not be banning sources - if there is enough weight to include an (actually reliable study) claiming something - it should be in, with balancing counter views. However without presenting something specific - this is just too general a question. Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (Should reliable sources that defend parapsychology be excluded altogether?)

 * Related: Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to add a number of reliable sources defending parapsychology to this article and other editors keep removing them claiming they are not mainstream. For example:


 * Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. American Psychologist, 73(5), pp 663-677. "Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses."


 * Storm, L., (2013),Testing the Storm et al. (2010) meta-analysis using Bayesian and frequentist approaches: reply to Rouder et al. (2013), Psychological Bulletin, vol. 139, issue 1, pp 248-54 - "Rouder et al. used a Bayesian approach, and we adopted the same methodology, finding that our case is upheld."


 * Utts, J., (1991), Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology, Statistical Science, vol. 4, issue 4, pp 363-378 - "The recent focus on meta-analysis in parapsychology has revealed that there are nonzero effects across studies, experiments and laboratories"


 * Hastings, A.C., (1976), A confirmatory remote viewing experiment in a group setting, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 64, issue 10, pp 1544-1545 - "A remote viewing experiment was conducted with a group of 36 persons who successfully identified, without apparent sensory communication, a target location chosen randomly and visited by two observers (p = 6 × 10 -7 )"


 * Belloff, John, (1984), The Reality of Psi, New Ideas in Psychology, vol. 2, issue. 1, pp 51-55 - "people can, on occasion interact with their external environment by means other than those of the recognised sensory and motor chanels"


 * Some of these sources are from the exact same journals or academic publishers that are presently cited in the article to criticise parapsychology. Editors are arguing that despite being in the same journals or from the same publishers these sources are not acceptable because they think parapsychology is fringe and that the sources should be excluded on that basis.


 * Editors proposed this source;


 * Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F., Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, "Some of the worst examples of confirmation bias are in research on parapsychology ... Arguably, there is a whole field here with no powerful confirming data at all. But people want to believe, and so they find ways to believe."


 * as a source to support criticism parapsychology. I agreed and proposed this source for balance:


 * Braude, S.E., (2007), The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, University of Chicago Press - "But in fact, those who sarcastically dismiss parapsychology typically know little. They haven’t carefully studied the data or issues for themselves."


 * Other editors claim this source is not reliable because parapsychologist are not reliable. This despite the book being from the same publishing house as this source:


 * Pigliucci, M, Boudry, M, (eds), (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University Of Chicago Press, p 158 - "Many observers refer to the field as a 'pseudoscience'. When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated."


 * that is already cited in the article to criticise parapsychology.


 * I then proposed this quote from the exact same book that was proposed to criticize:


 * Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F., Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, "throughout the more than a century and a half of psychical research and parapsychology, informed criticism has been scarce. Critics have focused on a few select examples, usually the weakest cases; have misrepresented the evidence and the claims; and have been polemical."


 * but it was reverted with the edit summary comment it was "Cherry picked quote not covered in body text, removed."


 * We have tried to discuss this but we are at an impasse. I hope the input of other uninvolved editors will help. Thank you.


 * Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: is the title "RfC: Should reliable sources that defend parapsychology be excluded altogether?" neutrally worded? RfC titles and descriptions should not make assumptions such as assuming that the sources that defend parapsychology are reliable. Can someone suggest a better title? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the question assumes that sources that defend parapsychology are inherently reliable. Rather I think it asks if sources that are reliable and defend parapsychology should be excluded. What do others think? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No - it's not a neutrally worded question. It's clearly worded in such a way that no neutral Wikipedian could say 'yes' to - policy tells us that reliable sources should not be excluded. This RfC, however, doesn't say which sources it's talking about it - the proposer of this question must realise that even if hundreds of editors come along and say 'No, of course they shouldn't be excluded', that doesn't move us forward at all, since this whole disagreement is about whether the sources are reliable or not. It would be just as useful to ask 'Should unreliable sources that defend parapsychology be included willy-nilly?' - it gets us nowhere. (I also note that the propose disregarded instructions for raising an RfC by putting their own comments and arguments alongside the question, not in the survey/discussion section.) If an RfC is needed at all (which is doubtful), it should be much more specific - 'Is source X reliable for assertion Y?'. Girth Summit  (blether)  06:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The instructions for listing an RfC say "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the tag." This is exactly what I did. I looked at other RfCs to see what they did. Several did exactly as I have done e.g. George Soros, D H Lawrence, Jimmy Page, Charles K. Kao. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That is not what you did - your statement below the tag is not neutral. You are clearly presenting reasons why readers should agree with your position - why else would you start the statement with the word 'despite'? Why have you chosen that particular quote from the RfA to present, when you could have simply linked to the RfA itself? (I haven't looked at the other RfCs you linked to - I've seen enough badly formatted RfCs to know that other stuff exists, that's not a reason to do likewise here). You haven't addressed the other points I made - the question itself is the main problem.  Girth Summit  (blether)  08:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC

RfC Are the sources specified in this RfC reliable?
Are the sources specified in this RfC reliable? Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey (Are the sources specified in this RfC reliable?)

 * Comment This is now a neutral question, but it is still too vague to be useful. We can't say whether they are reliable until we know what assertions it is proposed they support. If you look at WP:RSN, it makes it clear that in order to determine reliability for a source, you have to provide both the source and the content, because many sources might be reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y". You can't expect people coming to this RfC to read through the entire lengthy history above, work out what content we are discussing, and come to a reasoned conclusion about the sources. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I haven't done RfCs before. What do you think I should do? Should I close this RfC and take this to the WP:RSN? Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just close it. You will not be able to change science or be allowed to cherry pick your quotes to meet your in-bubble POV. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 09:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you go to WP:RSN, you will get more eyes on it from people who are used to judging the quality of sources; if you reformulate the RfC here, you will get more people with interest in the particular subject matter. Either way, you'll need to do this on an assertion-by-assertion basis - you can't get blanket agreement that a whole bunch of sources are reliable and need to be worked into the article somehow. However, my personal advice would be similar to Roxy's - I'd drop the stick now. In the lengthy discussions above, a lot of the most experienced, well-respected, and prolific editors in the whole community are arguing against you, and I don't see anyone other than yourself arguing in favour of your positions. You need to consider the possibility that you might be wrong; then, you should consider the possibility that you aren't going to convince the community that you're right. Either way, the result will be the same - the article will stay broadly as it is. I think it's very unlikely that you're going to get anywhere with this, and you risk wasting a lot of your own time, and a little bit of everyone else's. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment There are no sources provided in this RfC. Furthermore, sources need to be paired with claims in order to be determined reliable or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: You can't have an RfC on an extensive list of sources you have in the discussion section. Hiding the sources in question in a different section doesn't make the statement brief as per WP:RFC - to be coherent the statement clearly includes them. --tronvillain (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with the parties above, this is a malformed RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wut.  G M G  talk  15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Reliability of a source in light of the claim it would support is necessary but not sufficient for use in articles. Factors such as due weight, especially in light of a general consensus among all available reliable sources, also can and should be considered. Also, asking "Is X source reliable?" is not a meaningful question. A source can be very reliable for certain things, marginally reliable for others, and not at all reliable in other areas. For example, well regarded newspapers are quite reliable sources for general news and journalism, but are often of questionable reliability in the areas of scientific/medical claims and the like. Since the RfC doesn't answer the "Reliable for what?" question, it's impossible to give a meaningful answer, and also the massive list looks a bit like reference bombing. If there's a question of whether a specific source is reliable for a specific thing, well, that's what we have the reliable sources noticeboard for. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (Are the sources specified in this RfC reliable?)
Related: Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

I have attempted to add a number of reliable sources to this article and other editors keep removing them claiming they are not reliable For example:


 * Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. American Psychologist, 73(5), pp 663-677. "Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses."


 * Storm, L., (2013),Testing the Storm et al. (2010) meta-analysis using Bayesian and frequentist approaches: reply to Rouder et al. (2013), Psychological Bulletin, vol. 139, issue 1, pp 248-54 - "Rouder et al. used a Bayesian approach, and we adopted the same methodology, finding that our case is upheld."


 * Utts, J., (1991), Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology, Statistical Science, vol. 4, issue 4, pp 363-378 - "The recent focus on meta-analysis in parapsychology has revealed that there are nonzero effects across studies, experiments and laboratories"


 * Hastings, A.C., (1976), A confirmatory remote viewing experiment in a group setting, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 64, issue 10, pp 1544-1545 - "A remote viewing experiment was conducted with a group of 36 persons who successfully identified, without apparent sensory communication, a target location chosen randomly and visited by two observers (p = 6 × 10 -7 )"


 * Belloff, John, (1984), The Reality of Psi, New Ideas in Psychology, vol. 2, issue. 1, pp 51-55 - "people can, on occasion interact with their external environment by means other than those of the recognised sensory and motor chanels"


 * Some of these sources are from the exact same journals or academic publishers that are presently cited in the article to criticise parapsychology. Editors are arguing that despite being in the same journals or from the same publishers these sources are not acceptable because they think parapsychology is fringe and that the sources should be excluded on that basis. I counter that if a publication is reliable we can't decide to exclude some articles or books it publishes, that we should put them all to show both sides.


 * Editors proposed this source;


 * Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F., Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, "Some of the worst examples of confirmation bias are in research on parapsychology ... Arguably, there is a whole field here with no powerful confirming data at all. But people want to believe, and so they find ways to believe."


 * as a source to support criticism parapsychology. I agreed and proposed this source for balance:


 * Braude, S.E., (2007), The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, University of Chicago Press - "But in fact, those who sarcastically dismiss parapsychology typically know little. They haven’t carefully studied the data or issues for themselves."


 * Other editors claim this source is not reliable because parapsychologist are not reliable. This despite the book being from the same publishing house as this source:


 * Pigliucci, M, Boudry, M, (eds), (2013), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, University Of Chicago Press, p 158 - "Many observers refer to the field as a 'pseudoscience'. When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated."


 * that is already cited in the article to criticise parapsychology.


 * I then proposed this quote from the exact same book that was proposed to criticize:


 * Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F., Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, "throughout the more than a century and a half of psychical research and parapsychology, informed criticism has been scarce. Critics have focused on a few select examples, usually the weakest cases; have misrepresented the evidence and the claims; and have been polemical."


 * but it was reverted with the edit summary comment it was "Cherry picked quote not covered in body text, removed."


 * There is an arbitration finding this that, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.", editors are arguing that parapsychologists should not be cited at all because they are not mainstream."


 * We have tried to discuss this but we are at an impasse. I hope the input of other uninvolved editors will help. Thank you. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Has any editor ever agreed with you on any of this? Please read WP:1AM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"No powerful confirming data at all"
Here's a quote that I thought I had put into this article, but I actually put in another one, that may help with establishing the mainstream position on parapsychology: Sternberg and the two other editors are all former Presidents of the American Psychological Association. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a good citation. For balance I suggest Braude, S.E. (2007) The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, University of Chicago Press, 9780226071527, P xvii "But in fact, those who sarcastically dismiss parapsychology typically know little. They haven’t carefully studied the data or issues for themselves.". Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is the exact same thing astrologers say about astrology nonbelievers. And theologians about atheists. And conspiracy theorists about their detractors. And they are all wrong. Again, you want us to include general bullshit reasoning that can be used to defend any arbitrary thing. People do not believe in elves/Santa/homeopathy/dowsing/recovered memories? That's just because they do not know enough. Works just the same in every case.
 * "For balance"? See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes we do. WP:PARITY Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You should read that properly Morgan. It doesn't say what you think it does. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 11:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can please explain why you think it doesn't as it seems pretty clear to me? Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It means that we don't use poor sources like those you suggest, to falsely contradict good sources. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 11:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how it is that if I am citing the same journals as are already sited in the article they are poor sources? Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I cannot, because you are not making any sense. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 12:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and they should generally be considered unreliable. - this would also apply to fringe publications on otherwise reputable academic presses; academic presses are not necessarily peer reviewed at all. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok let me be super clear. Yes fringe journals exist. However that is not what we are talking about here. Pigliucci is cited in the lede in a book from The University of Chicago Press, Braude's book is also published by The University of Chicago Press. Blitz is cited in the lede from New Ideas in Psychology, Beloff is also from New Ideas in Psychology. Hyman is cited in the lede from Proceedings of IEEE, Hastings is also published in Proceedings of IEEE. In each of these cases only sources from a particular journal or academic press that are skeptical of parapsychology are alleged to be reliable sources. Sources that are supportive from the exact same journals or academic press are alleged to be not reliable. Please explain how you can cherry pick from a source. A journal is either reliable and peer reviewed or not. An academic publisher is either reliable or not. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Makes you wonder why people have developed telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, the internet, while it would have been less expensive to use psychics? Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Instead of answering my question you have made a sarcastic remark. Please answer the question: If these sources are good enough for criticism of parapsychology why are they not good enough to support it? Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Publisher is reliable" and "the article isn't fringe" are two different matters. Not everything published with peer-review in respectable journals is true. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I totally agree that not everything published in peer reviewed articles is good quality research. Academic publishing is a parlous state at present. But that is outside our scope. As wikipedia editors don't get to decide what's true and what's not. We just have to stick to wikipedia's policies. If the publisher is reliable we can cite the source. Unless anybody can say why these sources should not be cited I am going to put them back into the article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We have to stick to Wikipedia's policies, I agree. However, you're the only one not getting the idea that the way you're acting you're heading towards a topic ban. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "wikipedia editors don't get to decide what's true and what's not" Yes. But Wikipedia editors get to decide which parts of acceptable sources to quote and which parts not to quote. As I said before (in a contribution you ignored), we cannot quote everything and we have to choose what to take and what to refuse.
 * The quote you used in one of your reverted edits, saying that critics of parapsychology don't know what they are talking about, is
 * plainly false,
 * stupid reasoning that only appeals to gullible simpletons who swallow any reasoning that points in the direction they like,
 * a common tactic of crackpots of all stripes.
 * Thus, we should choose not to use it. As I said before, competence is required: WP:CIR. The choice of things to quote from the available sources is where that competence comes into play. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a colossal waste of time. Who wants to go to WP:AN and request a community-imposed topic ban? I would, but I am a bit swamped with real-world work. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to reach some kind of agreement on this instead of just going around in circles. As I said in the first instance, I have no problem with the quote from Sternberg. However you have a problem with my source. So if you want to go ahead and put Sternberg in the article I will find a different source than Braude to provide a balance view. I will discuss whatever source I can come up with here before adding it. This is not to say I don't think Braude is reliable. Just that I want to reach a compromise so we can move forward. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to be suggesting that it is ok to cherry pick quotes from sources. Moreover you began by saying editors don't get to decide what's true and what's not in reliable sources but then immediately went on to do exactly that. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We cannot decide something is true or false, in general, but we can decide something is plainly false. Different thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This really needs to stop you need to have a look at WP:1AM and WP:TEND - because your insistence on inserting fringe sources on the several-times refuted grounds that they published their hokum in a Psychology journal is getting to be tiresome. If you don't give this line of complaint a rest, you will likely be heading to WP:AN and considering how many editors have weighed in here it's probably not going to go well for you. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * None of you have been able to answer the question as to why it is that sources that are good enough to refute are not good enough to defend, other than to say that you think they are wrong. Yet I have offered a compromise and am trying to meet you half way. Is this not enough for you? Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In the interest of ticking off all the boxes and giving you every chance to avoid sanctions, I will explain why your source is not good enough:
 * The authorship of the source, combined with the clear and obvious support within that source for a position which is clearly considered fringe by consensus of relevant experts. If you do not understand how a source making claims in defiance of the scientific consensus is a WP:FRINGE source, regardless of who published it, then you lack the competence to edit this project. If you deny that "Psi does not exist" is a scientific consensus, then you lack the competence to edit. If you do not understand how your proposed edition presents a false balance between mainstream and fringe views, then you lack the competence to edit here. If, however, you grasp all of those concepts and accept them, then you will drop this subject and move on to more productive editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I fear you are straying into ad hominem. Even if a thing is fringe it doesn't mean it should be excluded. It should be balanced by other sources. There are plenty of opposing sources here. Any defense of parapsychology is excluded from this article, even, it seems, admissions, even by skeptics, that it has not been fairly judged are excluded.


 * I'd like to draw your attention to a request for arbitration decision here where it was found that "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking." If there is serious scientific study going on in parapsychology it should be included. Just because someone is a parapsychologist does not ipso facto  mean they can be excluded. Science advances by assessing new evidence as it appears.


 * You appear to have a fixed view that parapsychology is bunk and therefore the views of parapsychologists should be excluded and it shoudn't be studied. That is an unscientific view. There are lots of things in science that are not proved. That doesn't mean the study of them is not science. There are lots of things in science that we don't understand the mechanism of how they work, but they work nevertheless. I take a medicine that falls into this category. It it still efficacious regardless of the fact that no one knows why it works. It was recommended to me by a doctor who can admit he doesn't know how it works. It is still being studied to find out how it works. That is a scientific view. Have you even considered for a moment that perhaps a person devoted to debunking a thing is not an independent source?Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not reading your wall of text. Ad hominems are arguments: they are not always fallacious. For example, it is an ad hominem argument, but not a fallacy to say that Stephen E. Braude is an expert only in philosophy and thus his claims about psychology and any psychological experiments he designs are unreliable and can be dismissed. I'll not respond any further: I answered the question you claimed no-one was answering. If you don't like my answer, that's your problem, not ours. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not even reading before replying... And Pigliucci is an expert in philosophy, yet he is cited with an opinion on parapsychology. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pigliucci has been researching pseudoscience for several decades and is an acknowledged expert on the subject, so that's quite the failure of a counterargument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are employing the common rhetorical fallacy strawman. I wasn't arguing that Pigliucci wasn't an expert. Pigliucci is famous for being a philosopher and a skeptic. Braude is famous for being a philosopher and a parapsychologist. Both men are experts. I was arguing that you can't say a philosopher isn't qualified to be cited on parapsychoplogy when you are already citing one on it. Piglucci, a philosopher, is already cited, Simon223 is arguing that Braude can't be cited on the grounds that he is a philosopher. Which is contradictory, as before it was argued that he couldn't be cited on the grounds that he is a parapsychologist. Morgan Leigh | Talk 20:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck's sake, I wish I could outlaw people on the internet referencing logical fallacies because 99% of the time (including this time) you don't know what the hell you're talking about! That's not a fucking strawman. A Strawman is when I say or imply that your position is one which is similar to but not the same as your actual stated position, and then provide an argument against the position I have assigned you. That isn't even close to what happened here. You responded to a part of my argument (ignoring the rest) that you thought you could score points out. I responded directly to your claim and not to anything else that no, you cannot actually score points because Pigliucci's expertise is in pseudoscience, which includes parapsychology, and thus he is a qualified expert on the subject. That's not a strawman, that's just you losing the argument. Jesus, just please stop claiming fallacies without at least looking up what that fallacy actually is, first. And don't use wikipedia, because it's mostly written by the same neckbeards who keep throwing around the names of fallacies on the internet. Use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, instead.
 * As for Braude being a specialist in parapsychology: what have psychologists said about his parapsychology, vs what philosophers have said about his philosophy? Seriously, do your fucking research. Braude has been critiqued for lying in his parapsychology writings, but his philosophy stuff is always found to be pretty okay. As I previously said: Braude is a philosopher and -at worst- a mediocre one. Braude is, by no means, an expert in parapsychology, because he objectively sucks as writing about parapsychology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see that you have misunderstood me about the ad hominum, and I do apologise if I wasn't clear enough. However I am not going to go into it further with you as you are clearly very emotional and perhaps you should just take a break. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hah! You wish I was emotional. Well, I guess "amusement" is an emotion, so guilty as charged. But no, I did not "misunderstand you"; you simply misused the term. Same with your reference to a straw man argument: you don't know what you're talking about. I know this may come as a bit of a shock, but disagreeing with you is not a fallacy. Indeed, based on what I'm seeing here, it's more likely to be evidence of a sound argument than anything. If you've got no response to any of the myriad points I've raised, then I'd like to point out that you've had no response to any substantive point raised by any of the dozen or so editors who've disagreed with you. So... WP:STICK and WP:1AM come to mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been provided with ample answers. I'm tempted to start hatting further complaints about the same topic under WP:NOTFORUM Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is explicitly about a particular source I put forward for inclusion in the article and that was rejected. A source which was rejected because, it was initially argued, he was not reliable because he was a parapsychologist. Now you are arguing that it is not a relevant source because he is not a parapsychologist. Which one is it? If people who are parapsychologists can't be cited, and people who aren't can't be cited, who does that leave? Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Stephen E. Braude is a pseudoscience promoter and crank. Braude claims that blatant frauds like Eusapia Palladino had powers of psychokinesis, Daniel Dunglas Home actually levitated and Ted Serios was a genuine psychic. The fact you are promoting Braude shows you have not done your research. 82.132.229.106 (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of cited information without policy reason
@Roxy the dog: Please explain why you have removed cited information from the lede. You have not cited a policy reason. I'm not sure what you mean by "not covered in body text". Of things quoted in the lede, Blitz, Cordón, Gross, Hacking and Kurtz are not mentioned anywhere else but the lede, Bierman, Carroll, Friedlander, and Pigliucci are mentioned but not their quotes in the lede and Odling-Smee and Stein are not mentioned, though they are cited. How can it be that this is fine for criticism in the lede but not fine for the only statement in the lede that has any thing to say in defense? The only other thing I can think of that you might mean is that the topic of criticism is not covered, though this is abundantly obviously not the case. Please explain what you mean by "cherry picked"? Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See my Edsums. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You have failed to address the points I have raised here. Unless you can state a policy reason why you have removed cited information from the lede I am going to put it back. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * " "Cherry picked quote not covered in body text, removed." "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" -- Manual of Style/Lead section --Guy Macon (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure, if this eventually escalates into an edit war, that this diff will get brought up. I would suggest that when you've been WP:1AM for two weeks, and making absolute WP:SOUP of article talk, demanding that people explain pretty clear reversions and then threatening to counter-revert if they don't respond to you on your timeline is not the wisest course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Cherry picked quote" is not a policy reason. A quote is either from a source or it isn't. As I mentioned above, several authors who are quoted in the lede are not mentioned in the body. Why is this ok for critics but not for defenders? Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. If a particular source says that the earth is a sphere, it is OK to allow that source along with the many other sources that say the same thing. If Morgan Leigh carefully goes through that same source and finds a statement that, by itself, states or implies that the earth is flat, we would reject it as passing the WP:RS test but failing the WP:WEIGHT test.


 * You keep repeating the same arguments, and so far have you not convinced a single person. See WP:1AM, WP:IDHT, and WP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have provided this evidence. However no source is reliable enough for you, even when its the exact same source being cited for criticizing. Explain that. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Explain that? Glad to! "Cherry picked quote not covered in body text, removed". No need to thank me. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You didn't read WP:1AM, WP:IDHT, WP:SOUP or WP:STICK, did you? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Cherry picked" is not a policy. It's an opinion. You haven't addressed all the other citations in the lead not covered in the body. But I guess those are ok because they criticise... Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Physics
Some references in the physics section are highly reductivist, without any discussion or reference to metaphysics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.92.167.40 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As they should. VdSV9• ♫ 20:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)