Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote influencing

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

Remote influencing
Vote summary as of 21:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Timharwoodx
 * Delete: Randwicked, AllyUnion, Deathphoenix, Pavel Vozenilek, Calton, Iralith, Edeans, Mike Rosoft
 * Delete, votes apparently changed later to to Redirect: Carnildo,  Wyss,
 * '''Redirect to Psychokinesis: Dpbsmith (talk)

As of 2004 the term remote influencing is becoming widely used for certain kinds of psychokinesis. Thats the opening paragraph of the WIKI psychokinesis entry. I would go somewhat further, and argue RI has already more or less replaced the term psychokinesis, to describe the alleged use of the mind to influence matter. In this light, unless WIKI wishes to use old fashioned out of date language and terminology on purpose, I would argue this vote is quite clearly the wrong way round. The psychokinesis entry should be merged into remote influencing, and not vice versa. Just do a google search to confirm the popularity of "RI" as present usage. Why would WIKI vote to use old fashioned out of date language? Furthermore, unless those requesting deletion can explain their viewpoint, which they seem unable to do in this instance, how do we know they are not just mere sock puppets? Finally, there are a dozen sub terms on the psychokinesis page that have their own WIKI entry. RI has its own sub section, a tacit admission of the widespread usage of this term, yet a sub page request is being denied by this deletion request. The request for deletion of RI, is self evidently editorially totally inconsistent with the editing applied to the psychokinesis page. I also think there is a good case for merging clairvoyance into remote viewing, since as with RI and psychokinesis, it is essentially the same phenomena. RV and RI have become the accepted language - surely it is not for WIKI to take dispute with the evolution of psychic terminology, and try and force old fashioned out of date language on internet users? If people search for RI, and call it RI, the phenomena should be listed under RI, logically. Timharwoodx 13:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, "remote influencing" not the new word for psychokinesis, as a check of any dictionary will show you. AHD4 includes neither "remote viewing" or "remote influencing." I was the one who added "remote influencing" to the psychokinesis page in an effort to acknowledge that the term is in restricted use and deserves a brief mention. It does not need its own article, and a redirect takes care of people finding it. When and if respected dictionaries include "remote influencing" as entries, and define psychokinesis as "remote influencing," then it will make sense to say that the word "psychokinesis" is out of date, and not before. My stances, a) that "remote influencing" deserves a brief mention, and b) does not deserve its own article are perfectly consistent. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with that, on reflection. Dictionary.com says thus:

''psy·cho·ki·ne·sis  Audio pronunciation of "psychokinesis" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sk-k-nss, -k-) n. pl. psy·cho·ki·ne·ses (-sz) Abbr. PK The production or control of motion, especially in inanimate and remote objects, purportedly by the exercise of psychic powers.''

So adding remote influencing to psychokinesis makes no sense at all, since as presently employed, RI applies to people and biological systems. Thoughts, emotions, hearts, blood clots, etc. It does not involve the movement of objects. Just do a google search, and see for yourself.

So then we have the puzzle that we have a phenomena, the American government and army is spending significant amounts of money on, we have on camera interviews to back that up, that biographical claims exist for such as Buchanan, that is the object of numerous claims and offers and services, that is distinct from the existing WIKI entry of psychokinesis, yet apparently, MUST be denied its own entry. This whole thread gets more bizarre by the post. We just made a case for inclusion of RI as a separate term to PK.

I did notice the psychokinesis RI entry had the incorrect information that the Ronson book was self published. Actually, it accompaned a major investigative TV series. I can understand a difference of opinion, but to add information that is false to WIKI, because you don't likr a certain subject, is getting a bit extreme. I mean, I don't edit other people's posts, and I don't add knowingly false information to WIKI. Why are people adding false information about the Ronson book to WIKI? Are these guys just CIA 'sock puppets?' You have to wonder. It seems to me this is a case of 'they doth protest too much' What desperation drives the posters, who in their own terms of logic, admit RI is is significant, and is distinct from PK? The sheer number of posts to this thread indicates an extreme high level of interest in the subject, and in itself, could be part of a case for inclusion. Timharwoodx 21:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Of the terms I've heard for this sort of thing, "telekinesis" is the most common, followed by "psychokinesis". The only place I've heard "remote influencing" is this article.  Both "telekinesis" and "psychokinesis" are used for any situation where the human mind is used to influence material objects, be they spoons, bricks, or the hearts of goats.


 * As for the book being self-published, the term applies to any publishing arrangement where the author of the book is the one paying the costs of publishing.


 * And I don't particularly like being accused of being a "sock puppet" or under the influence of the CIA. --Carnildo 22:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original kookery. --Carnildo 00:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Randwicked 02:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, barking vanity crank. Wyss 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I am going to use my remote influence online: Delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * keep So why is this any more 'barking' than the existing Wiki entry on Remote Viewing? RI is something the American government spends a lot of money on - as a matter of pubic record, carefully documented by Ronson. If dowsing, and various other entries are okay, why is this one not? I wonder if the problem with this article is that its too good, and that the American government is concerned some of their secrets are being put in the public domain. Are these objections gvmt inspired? out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, extrasensory perception, ghosts, clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience) (precognition, retrocognition, second sight, psychometry and psychokinesis. Thats just a small sample of other entires allowed in Wiki, which strangely, no-one seems to have any problem with, despite lacking the hard documentary evidence Ronson has provided for RI Timharwoodx 15:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Simply put, because this article is a vanity take on the topic. If it wasn't barking crankiness, I'd have called it "original research, no evidence of peer review", but somehow that didn't seem approrpriate. Wyss 17:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What peer review exists for ghosts or clairaudience, exactly? Both allowed articles. Surely that is just 'original research, no evidence of peer review.' There are many examples in Wiki of articles about well funded government research projects. None of these get challenged. The history of RI has been carefully documented in a one hour tv special and book by Ronson. If remote viewing is an allowed topic, the history of a government research project, why is remote influencing, the history of a government research project, any different? I just took the liberty to chop the article somewhat, and it is now clearly focussed on documented historical facts of activity by the American military. Actually, point of fact, you're dead wrong about the absence of peer review. The article, is in fact based in part upon a peer reviewed article published in New Scientist magazine. So on the basis of your claim there is no scientific peer review for this article and that is unsupported 'original research,' I would deduce you voted for deletion, without actually bothering to read the article in the first place. How strange.Timharwoodx 17:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I did not say I voted to delete based on a lack of peer review. I voted to delete because this article represents a "barking, vanity crank", and I still don't see anything in it to sway me otherwise. Wyss 20:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete original research. --Deathphoenix 20:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Multiple independent peer review references to the scientific literature, yet the above poster calls it just 'original research.' Crazy. I see no vanity in the edited version of this article. You're just voicing a personal prejudice, you can't back up in any way. Fine, get RI deleted this time, it will just be back in 6 months time. You can't wish away experimental facts, no matter how hard you try. No-one requesting deletion has yet provided any real reason *WHY*, other than you just don't...er... like it. Personal emotional prejudice, is no real reason to ask for the deletion of an article. How can an article be both as you admit 'scientifically peer reviewed' and a 'barking, vanity crank,' at the same time? A highly illogical position, derived from raw emotion, I would argue. Emotion is not a rational thought process, nor is it scientific, or peer reviewed. May I respectfully submit, the folks asking for deletion here, most likely work for the government, and don't want their RI secrets publicised? They seem to be obsessed with this entry, in a way that is beyond reason. Timharwoodx 23:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Codswallop. This topic/research is definitely not peer-reviewed, it cobbles together a few marginal citations not directly related to it, quite a different thing. For example, so many cranks refer to Richard Fenyman these days that some professionals have grown wary of doing so in lay literature. Furthermore, New Scientist is a pop science publication, not a scholarly journal. As for military organiations, these have a tendancy to look into anything that might have a potential to disorient or kill people. Such interest shouldn't be interpreted as inherently scientific, or even serious. Wyss 23:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, note... before some careless reader interprets the above as an assertion that Fenyman was a crank, my point is that cranks cite him abusively, attempting to use his name to lend credibility to their gibberish. Wyss 23:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The New Scientist article is a summary of peer review research. Had you actually read the article, obviously not, you'd know this. The man of reason, taks with confidence about articles he has not actually read. Amazing. He just *KNOWS* things, without having to study or read them. I'd call that paranormal, personally. May I respecfully submit, most likely all the posters asking for deletion here, are on the CIA payroll, or doing this on behalf of the CIA. An article based upon multiple peer review scientific references, is clearly within the bounds of content guidelines for Wiki. Timharwoodx 00:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If I was on the CIA payroll, I wouldn't be wasting time VfDing an article. Instead, both you and the article would have simply vanished. --Carnildo 00:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, you fail to provide a valid reason for deletion. All I see here is raw emotion. An article carefully referenced to the peer review scientific literature, is within Wiki content guidelines. No-one has yet shown why the edited version of the article, is not within Wiki content guidelines. All you offer is terse insults. Wiki is not a forum for flame wars, as I understand it. Either show how the article infringes content guidelines, or refrain from comment. Timharwoodx 00:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Speak for yourself, Carnildo. I'm on the CIA payroll. I've been biding my time, editing such articles as Monastery and Hopping corpse to lull everyone into a false sense of security, and then bam! I cast my single vote to delete this article so that the military is once again safe and sound. --Deathphoenix 02:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I just love the ironic juxtaposition of the first and second parts of this extract: Amazing. He just *KNOWS* things, without having to study or read them. I'd call that paranormal, personally. May I respecfully submit, most likely all the posters asking for deletion here, are on the CIA payroll, or doing this on behalf of the CIA. Clearly, exercising a bit of the paranormal yourself. Let me don my tin-foil beanie and vote Delete. --Calton 00:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Once again, and I'm getting bored with this, the poster fails to explain how the article contravenes Wiki content guidelines. Raw emotional prejudice, or a paid shrill. Can *ANYONE* show how this article contravenes Wiki content guidelines? It seems not. Timharwoodx 01:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Very simple: it's original research. All the peer-reviewed journal articles cited are for the effect of prayer on healing, not for the effect of RI on healing.  AFAIK, New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed journal for research, and the two books cited aren't peer-reviewed references. --Carnildo 01:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The CIA remote-influenced me to vote delete. I guess you could argue that an article on this subject (a belief held by a noticeable minority, similar to this or that element in science fiction) miiiiiight be NPOV--but I didn't see much of anything in the existing article that seemed likely to survive a POV cleanup. Furthermore, the author has implied above that . . . well, that the first sentence of my vote is literally true; this suggests that s/he operates in such a radically different noosphere from most of us that consensus would be, er, hard to archive. Iralith 19:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Mark for cleanup. Mark for NPOV. Mark for factual accuracy. Keep. Sorry about that. I'm well aware it's garbage. The question is whether "remote influencing" is a phrase and concept in general use. It gets over 11,000 Google hits. I'm darned if I see how this is any different from psychokinesis, though. The author has even cited sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Changed my mind. See below.
 * Are you willing to do the job? As for sources, the last I checked, all the peer-reviewed sources listed were irrelevant to the article.  --Carnildo 02:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I'm not surprised. No, I'm not willing to do the job. I'm sort of burned out after NPOVing Gerovital and Mozart effect. I sort of hope the article will be deleted, despite my principled vote to keep, because if it's kept I'll feel some responsibility to try to do something about it. If you've checked, maybe you can verify my surmise that the article is mainly based on the Jon Ronson book, The Men Who Stare At Goats. OK, I've changed my vote... to a job I would be willing to do. See below. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I get that feeling too, especially with the article's original form. --Carnildo 19:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Psychokinesis. Add a few sentences to psychokinesis mentioning the term "Remote influencing," briefly describing the current belief-system that goes by that name, and merging in a few of the relevant links from the current Remote influencing article. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Redirect. Changing my vote again. --Carnildo 19:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * A simple redirect sounds ok to me too. Wyss 20:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, remove all references to RI from the psychokinesis article. This "timharwoodx" guy is just too annoying. --Carnildo 22:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments I just added as much as I thought appropriate to Psychokinesis: a short section, and a reference to the Ronson book as typical of the genre. The Ronson book is published by Picador, a vanity press, by the way. Does anyone have any bona fide, easily verifiable evidence that the U. S. government is actually conducting remote influencing programs? It appears as if a couple of researchers coined the term "remote viewing" as a euphemistic synonym for "clairvoyance," and that became the trendy term for clairvoyance because it sounded scientific, and "remote influencing" got coined by extension. As nearly as I can tell "remote influencing" is a synonym for "psychokinesis," plain and simple. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Remote influencing is gonna get re-created sometime soon, even if it gets deleted this time. Its a recognised term, that deserves explanation - as much as remote viewing. I've added skeptical references to the article. Its referenced to historical studies, books, peer review articles. How many articles in Wiki can say the same? As it stands, it seems likely more articles will be produced on RI over time, and the article will get filled out in the years to come. Why so much grief? I chopped it big time. Timharwoodx 00:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wyss 02:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's original research
 * The article provides no evidence that remote influence is a "recognized" term
 * The citations don't refer to the topic you wrote about
 * The crank claim that anyone here voting for deletion was in the pay of the CIA didn't help
 * "Original kookery" sounds about right. So, I shall delete this cant WITH MY MIND!  (OK, I can't really do that, but delete it anyway).  Edeans 06:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Crackpottery. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 15:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i've heard about this. the article doesnt say, is there a way to sheild against it, like with armor or something?

It has been re-written - by me. Its nothing like the original article, now. Its carefully referenced to historical studies, biographies, peer review papers, with skeptical challenges to the viewpoints presented, also linked. If only every article in Wiki could conform to this standard of presentation. I just did a google search, and I would say conservatively RI turned up over 100 relevant page links. Its clearly a known and recognised term, in use by real people, including the American military, and including Donald Rumsfeld. Its real enough to get funded. The article did originally have a comment from Lyn Buchannan on shielding methodologies, but because there was no peer review scientific paper on that, I decided to drop it. Maybe insisting on strict peer review evidence for all effect claims in the article, as was being demanded by several posters, is going *SLIGHTLY* too far. I think it is, personally, but I'd rather have something in Wiki, than nothing. So if it needs peer review evidence, then so be it, because it certainly exists. Timharwoodx 16:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I see four peer-reviewed studies for a totally different subject (prayer as a technique for healing) and three articles criticizing those four. One of the New Scientist articles mentioned (Matthews and McCrone are two separate articles, and should not be cited as if they were one) is a criticism of paranormal research in general, and the other may cover RI briefly.  The SciAm article is an overview of consciousness in general, and I don't recall it covering paranormal abilities.


 * Of the books, two cover prayer in healing, and the other two have the feel of being written for the purpose of making sales, not to reveal any truths. --Carnildo 19:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I would add that attempting to relate the phenomenon of human prayer-making to something called "remote influencing" is original research in the extreme. Wyss 19:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think myself and many others, believe 'prayer' is just a group form of meditation. You sit down, focus you mind on a person not present, and wish a certain outcome for them. Yet that is 100% different to remote influencing as the military practise it you say, where you focus on a person, and wish a certain outcome (their hearts stops, their blood clots, etc). It seems to me the basics, focussing on a person, wishing a certain health outcome, are the same. Interestingly, the prayer studies seem to confirm the same performance envelope for the effect, as the military studies i.e. predominantly coronary and clotting based application. Its clear since I edited the article, support for your repeated and somewhat hysterical requests for deletion have dried up. If it gets deleted, I'm re-creating, because its obvious the silent majority think this is fair value. The article may get expanded in the future, but I think its reasonable for now, to stick to claims that can be backed up by peer review evidence. If people want more, I suggest they add a comment to the discussion page, and register their interest in a more full discussion of RI, as a matter of historical record. Timharwoodx 11:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not the way it works. If the article is deleted, re-creating it will make it eligible for speedy deletion by an admin. As for the level of participation in this vote, I wouldn't read too much into that. New votes always tail off as an entry scrolls up the main VfD page. Wyss 19:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be re-submitted from scratch. I think its 90% different to what was originally posted, before I hacked it to pieces. Most of the above comments apply to something that has little resemblance to whats presented posted. I think the vast majority of concerns originally raised, have now been addressed. To this extent, the request for deletion has been proved a useful editorial process. Besides which, more studies in RI are pending, and if 2/3 more credible peer review articles turn up, I would argue the case for inclusion get stronger. If we got to the point in 20 years time, when 20 + accepted RI studies existed, the thing was mainstream funded science, Wiki would look pretty silly, if it said 'it was deleted in 2005, and it can never come back because of that.' Long term, there is going to be an RI entry, of that I have no doubt, its just a question of at what point the vocal minority give up and accept it.Timharwoodx 13:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.