Talk:Psychic detective

Bias
This article presents only the skeptical angle and although it does use neutral language the conclusions are very one sided. The external links also only point to specific 'skeptic' sites. I feel the article needs some restructuring and more discussion of the possible merits of this kind of work. --Solar 10:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

(moved here by &mdash; BillC talk 22:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)):

There are no "documented cases" of psychics helping solve any crimes. This article is incorrect. Psychics have been repeatedly proven to be fakes. Recall Sylvia Browne telling a couple on TV that their son was dead, which he wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.50.110 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are documented cases of psychics helping police, and even predicting 9/11 - search on Christopher Robinson, Dream Detective (UK) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.116.130 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They need to be documented by reliable sources. And they are not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. You clearly have not bothered to look for evidence that does not support you debunking views. There are hundreds now of interviews with police officers and others who clearly state that they have witnessed extraordinary events. Events where Psychics have produced not only evidence for past crimes but for crimes about to be committed. I suggest you learn how to research subjects. 86.3.82.145 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The correct answer would have been either "yes, you are right" or "you are wrong, here are reliable sources for it: [link], [link], [link], [link] ." You failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Prominent cases
The article seems pretty balanced for a contentious topic, and looking at the comments above it seems to have been improved a lot over the years. The one thing I noticed reading through it though was that the Prominent cases section has all the failed cases first, followed by all the successful ones. Though it might be difficult to gauge, wouldn't ordering them in terms of their prominence (or failing that, chronologically) be a far less biased approach? &#8209;&#8209; xensyria T 00:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. I do think that we need to send some time looking through these "successful ones" and make sure they really are. Just because the news agency reports it as a success does not mean it IS a success.  This is the media after all, and sensational sells, not necessarily facts. I'm calling "not it" at the moment, but would totally support someone who has the time.Sgerbic (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, a reliable source investigating these claims as neutrally as possible would be ideal; hopefully someone will add one. In the meantime I've done a quick google on each case to try to gauge media coverage, and strangely, despite a few changes, the division remains with the "successes" getting much less coverage (only the Cheryl Carroll-Lagerwey case—hardly a success itself—comes close to the outright failures). It could be that only when a case garners enough attention is the truth behind the claim outed, but as you point out, I would have thought the more sensational stories would have garnered more coverage. &#8209;&#8209; xensyria T 13:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like there is a policy here on WP about dealing with Fringe claims, I just can't think what it is. Anyway, it deals with how just because a normally good WP source (like a newspaper) might write positively about a fringe topic and not really do its homework to investigate the claim. Then the story would be reported here on WP without criticism but as if it really happened.  For example a small newspaper might report that a UFO has turned up in their town and space aliens live in the community. Maybe no one in the bigger media noticed this story, and only this one remains. By WP rules it could be reported as true.  It would take some other news source to specifically investigate that story and report on it.Sgerbic (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV (again)
Personally, I'm sympathetic to the viewpoint that there have been many false claims of people portraying themselves as psychics and, thus, have sometimes seriously hampered criminal investigations. However, since there are documented cases--albeit rare--where psychics have been able to accurately give information that they could not have known otherwise, the article, in my view, needs to tone down the language used in favor of the "skeptics" viewpoint and attempt to balance this more carefully with the "pro-psychic" viewpoint. (I strongly suggest avoiding, for example, the use of the world "claim" wherever possible.) The fact that the subject is contentious should not be justification, in my opinion, for trying to prove one viewpoint over the other; both can co-exist. Also, the many "failures" by would-be psychics does not disprove the existence of legitimate psychics, no matter how infrequently those true psychics may be successful. As a result, I'm reluctantly going to re-place the NPOV tag. Of course, the tag can be removed at any time. But I hope only after the article has been moved significantly closer to that of neutrality.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://skepdic.com/psychdet.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk  13:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)