| Revision as of 20:52, 23 March 2007 editMinderbinder~enwiki (talk | contribs)4,880 edits →"a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena" doubly revisited: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:25, 11 September 2024 edit undoRandomstaplers (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,088 edits →Change subject to psychic phenomena - LetoDidac (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC): ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| '''{{Controversial}}'''{{Calm talk}} | |||
| {{Controversial}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
| {{Calm}} | |||
| |- | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
| !align="center"|] | |||
| {{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Low}} | |||
| ] | |||
| {{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{WikiProject Women's History |importance=Low}} | |||
| |- | |||
| }} | |||
| |align="center"|] | |||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ps}} | |||
| |- | |||
| {{annual readership}} | |||
| |align="center"|] | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center"|] | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center"|] | |||
| |} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| == "A psychic is a person..." == | |||
| == Latest edits == | |||
| This introductory phrase is biased because assumes an individual or solely acting person. | |||
| Noclevername, nice work on the recent tweaks. You've done a very good job of keeping neutral wording, thanks. --] 12:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Firstly, 'psychic' is also an adjective that denotes a phenomenon. Secondly, for there to be psychic relies, by definition, on at least two entities, whereby only one of them is visible in the flesh. ] (]) 05:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| I think a more glaring mistake is found in the fact that the word, "claim," is being used in the definition. You can't be something by claiming it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Why, thank you Milo, I'm glad you liked our work. ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :True. I can say I'm a fish. But if you look up fish it doesn't say people who claim they is fish. Nonsense. ] (]) 05:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, and thanks to Martinphi for his additions. It's an ongoing process; for every unsupported opinion we trim off, two more grow in its place... ] 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022 == | |||
| ::MAYBE iyou should bring all of the a"unsported" claims here" so that we can work together to give them support like <--fro examle citation or other things~!!!') ] 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Psychic|answered=yes}} | |||
| :::?? As clearly as I can understand what you're saying, that's not the purpose of Misplaced Pages (see ] for reasons why). Misplaced Pages's supposed to be a source of reliable (or at least confirmable) information, not speculation. ] 19:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Typo in Criticism and Research Section: | |||
| "Investigator Ben Radford stats that..." | |||
| change stats to states. ] (]) 02:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> 💜 <span style="border:solid 1px; border-radius:7px;background:#226;border-color:#338">]</span> ] - 02:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023 == | |||
| == PARAYSYCHOLOGY.ORG == | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Psychic|answered=yes}} | |||
| http://www.parapsychology.org/ i just adde dth a ppage to this article. a it says that it is one of the official paraspychology internet influences and it hink that if this can be proved verifiabled then it can be a good research tool for compelteing this encyclopedic aritlce. ] 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Under 'Fraud', there is some issue with the html | |||
| alling for a psychic scam can result in a loss of one's entire life savings. In an example given in article by Rob Palmer,'''<ref name="Harm">'''Palmer, Rob. "Belief in Psychics: What's the Harm and Who's to Blame?". Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 17 November 2022.'''</ref>''' a woman gave a psychic $41,642 over a period of 10 weeks. | |||
| :Please, please, PLEASE try to write more clearly. Seriously. -- ] 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| please fix this :) thanks ] (]) 04:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::do you have anything '''constructive''' tos ay ahout my site? ] 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :actually, sorry, my copy and paste didnt reveal the error | |||
| :::Smith, if you are dyslexic or something, and can't type more clearly, would you please tell us? Otherwise, would you please be more careful? ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :it is there in the article ] (]) 04:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> --] (]) 05:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024 == | |||
| ==Pseudoscience== | |||
| If you would like to put this article in the pseudoscience category, please give a WP:V source for doing so. Let this post stand in for a citation request on the pseudoscience Cat in the article. If you find a good, NPOV source, I would also like to put it in the science Cat. This is because it is connected to parapsychology, which is a science. I can source that to Hyman, Randi, Alcock, and the AAAS. ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Would someone please add to the external links or elsewhere if you think it appropriate? | |||
| :I found af ew source here that talk about psychics and psuedoscience. | |||
| Also ? | |||
| ----- | |||
| ----- | |||
| ----- (not sure it if ill be will accepted) | |||
| ----- | |||
| == Change subject to psychic phenomena - ] (]) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC) == | |||
| oh, and not dyslexic i just typ3e in a hurry. i'll tr y to slow down but you could make an effort to understand me better. ] 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Edit semi-protected|Psychic|answered=yes}} | |||
| ::Thanks for the sources Smith (: ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Change short description to: | |||
| Alleged phenomena whereby the mind perceives information beyond the ordinary senses or interacts with the environment in ways that defy conventional understanding | |||
| :::As far as I am concerned, it can stay in the pseudoscience Cat, (with proper sourcing) but only if it is also in the science Cat. There are plenty of sources for relating it to science. ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd say put ] under science, but leave Psychic where it is ("psychic" isn't the name of a science or a pseudoscience, just a potential subject of study). It's sort of like putting "automobile" under Physics just because a car engine uses the laws of thermodynamics. ] 06:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Change first paragraph of body text to: | |||
| :::::You're right- but the article is now under Cat pseudoscience. I'd say take it out of both science and pseudoscience. Is that what you mean? ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 19:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Psychic''' (or psi) phenomena refer to alleged human faculties that allow individuals to perceive or interact with the world beyond the normal physical means, supposedly through mental processes. Alleged ] are generally categorised into two types; ] (ESP), which involves accessing information hidden from the ordinary ]s, through means such as ], ], ] or ]; and abilities relating to mental-physical manipulation, such as ] and ]. While the application of psychic phenomena by practitioners (such as mediums, clairvoyants and energy healers) is widely considered to be ], efforts to investigate these claims in controlled conditions are part of the field of ] (or psi research). The , an affiliate of the , is the leading international organization for scientists and scholars exploring psi phenomena. | |||
| The theorectical underpinnings of psychics are not a science (like physics) but really on principles that according to the ] article, match a pseudoscience. I am inclined to sway to Noclevername's argument above though. ] 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Change - Please create new subsection for ‘Modern day psychic practitioners’ to include the rest of the introductory section focusing on the role of psychic practitioners. ] (]) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Then we are in agreement. ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> See ] and ]. ⸺(])] 19:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would appreciate an explanation from @] on reasons for undue. For other user's interest, here are the editorial explanations I included in the submission: | |||
| ==Blog?== | |||
| ::Explanation for change in short description: 1 'Psychic' is not defined by its practitioners, but rather by the phenomena under consideration(practitioners simply take the name of the phenomena); 2 psychic covers both perception (ESP) but also allged mind-matter interaction. | |||
| This site ] appears to be a blog. As such it fails ] and should be removed. Comments? | |||
| ::Explanation for changes to body text: | |||
| ::'''1''' Psychic phenomena need to be defined before their practitioners. '''2''' examples should prioritize phenomena most under active research, such as precognition, in favor of those that have not been actively studied such as teleportation. '''3''' the applied practice of psychic phenomena, e.g. chakras, mediumship, can be considered pseudoscience due to lack of scientific method and rigour (I don't think anyone would debate this). '''4''' the scientific enquiry and debate into psi phenomena as a whole cannot be considered pseudoscience, as this would imply that both critics and proponents are unscientific and not open to debate and improving studies, and that there is therefore no scientific field of study for investigating the purported phenomena despite them being widely believed by the general public; That some scientists have characterised an entire field of study as pseudoscience does not justify such a claim in a wiki page; methodological flaws, mistakes and incorrect conclusions can be seen in all fields of study (e.g. quantum physics), but this does not make those entire fields of study pseudoscience, as this would create closed-mindedness to further research and strongly discourage scientific enquiry. The AAAS recognised parapsychology as a legitimate science due to consistent use of scientific methods. '''5''' concluding with a link to the mainstream organisation that debates and discusses the issues of psi research will be useful for interested readers. ] (]) 04:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Personal website- but it isn't a blog, is it? ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] You're making a substantial change to the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article. This means you'll have to (effectively) change the '''entire''' article. And you're going to have to find references that prove, specifically, that psychic phenomena are effective (and not just from an advocate's homepage). | |||
| ::Sorry, my own terminology there, a blog to me is really a personal website. Either way, I'm after comments to see if this link is suitable under ] specifically point 11. ] 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::By the way, I did not revert your other edit I warned you about. You'll have to talk to that other editor.⸺(])] 04:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think ,that the link should stayt because there needs to be equal amounts ofPostivie PSychic informaiton to make sure that there is POV. ] | |||
| ::::From the background information on him, he appears to be a well-known professional journalist, if true, he would be acceptable under ], as well as the exception to ] "''except those written by a recognized authority''". ] <small> ] </small> 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't necessarly see him as a "recognized authority" authority on the subject (psychic) nor as a RS given Dawkin's comments in ]. So I'm questioning it's use here in the article. After all, if it mets RS and EL then it is more appropriate over at ] itself. "equal amounts ofPostivie PSychic informaiton" ]. ] 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Is he a well-known professional journalist? From a quick scan, it looks like he's done a lot of work and research on paranormal related issues. BTW, Dawkins' comments don't break him as an RS, that's an issue defined by Misplaced Pages guidelines and rules, not just someone's opinion. I've quoted the relevant Misplaced Pages rules for issues like this, that's how we make the determination. ] <small> ] </small> 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I took it out and put in the PA instead- in case Y'all didn't notice. Any objections? ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, fine by me. I wasn't attached to it at all. Just discussing the rules.. ] <small> ] </small> 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena" doubly revisited == | |||
| It appears that Category:Purported psychics is not going to be changed to Category:Psychics. I prefer the second, for simplicity, but I share others' concerns that the latter name could imply that psychic powers actually exist. However, if we changed Misplaced Pages's definition of a psychic to "a person who ''claims'' to have the ability to produce psychic phenomena" (no italics, of course), it would then make sense to rename the category to Category:Psychics, as this would no longer imply a POV according to Misplaced Pages's definition of a psychic. Thoughts? <b>]</b> 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Note that this definition is supported by at least one dictionary: Dictionary.com's Random House-based dictionary a psychic as "a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces; medium." <b>]</b> 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The definition is in the definite minority. It is also misleading, as it makes the assumption that the powers don't exist- which is OR, and POV (see parapsychology page, and others). It would be like saying that anyone is a psychologist if they hang an sign out saying they are. No, no matter what definitions you find which say this, it is not a correct definition. In fact, I don't believe that this is what the definition you site means. Rather, they expect the reader to know that when they say "A psychic is someone who claims to have psi powers," they mean the reader to know that what they mean is "A psychic is defined as someone who has psi powers. But, these powers don't exist." So the latter is really the only definition there is. | |||
| ::Audacity, I also shared your concern. However, I would much rather have a clear definition of "psychic," and keep the Category, than weasel the definition. This present solution is much the lesser of two evils. ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::What if Edward Cayce admitted he was a faker, then you would have the worlds most famous psychic is not a psychic anymore, under your definition. What about a person who does cold reading on tv and it says "psychic" on their tax return--is he not a psychic? Audacitie's definition is the correct one: A person who is alleged to have psychic powers. Even if that person themself doesn't believe, or isn't sure that she's a medium. I know psychic powers exist--and most people probably demonstrate psi phenomena a few times in thier lifetimes, does that make us all psychics? I know I'm not a psychic. Maybe the problem is that the word has two definitions: sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or supernatural nature. a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces--sounds like the same thng, but they aren't, but they are all psychics whether they are really sensitive or not. That's why this changing the name to Purported Psychics is BOGUS! ] 04:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"What if Edward Cayce admitted he was a faker, then you would have the worlds most famous psychic is not a psychic anymore, under your definition. " | |||
| ::::Correct | |||
| ::::"What about a person who does cold reading on tv and it says "psychic" on their tax return--is he not a psychic?" | |||
| ::::The IRS is a victim of skepticism- this is about legal terminology, not psychics. | |||
| ::::"and most people probably demonstrate psi phenomena a few times in thier lifetimes" | |||
| ::::Yes. | |||
| ::::Well, I'd much rather change the Cat than change the definition. However, there are definitions which one could use which could accomodate everyone. | |||
| ::::Here is what we could do: | |||
| The term psychic comes from the Greek word psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind). It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher. The word ''psychic'' is used in several ways. It can mean anyone who performs mentalist magic, or otherwise engages in performances traditionally labeled psychic. Or it can mean a person who is genuinely able to produce psi phenomena. It can also refer to the magical or psi phenomena themselves. | |||
| ::::This is quite confusing and clumsy, but we could do it. What you are basically proposing, though, (without my addition) is to take any mention of the fact that the phenomena might be genuine out of the defintion. That's why Milo likes it (um... wrong page, see ]). | |||
| ::::You are also eliminating a really good generall policy: define the phenomena as real, then say that there is skepticism about it. It is just an invitation to weasels. It is what the skeptics have been trying to do on here for months, in an attempt to discredit anything and everything psychic. ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. My objection isn't that it says that it ''might'' be genuine, it's that it says that it ''is'' genuine, which is POV and unverifiable. Some people believe it's genuine, some don't, but at this point it hasn't been verifiably proven by WP standards - what you call "weasel" is just using a NPOV description of the fact that we're talking about something that is a proposed concept and not a proven one. I think any of these proposed changes would be an improvement, although the last would be more NPOV if it said "It can also refer to the alleged/purported/claimed (pick one or an alternative) magical or psi phenomena themselves." | |||
| :::::As for "define the phenomena as real, then say that there is skepticism about it." that's not how wikipedia works. To define it as real, we need a reliable source saying it's real (and the more extraordinary the claim, the more/better sources we need). Good luck taking that approach at something like ], ], or ]. Or heck, just try going to ] and "defining" him as the son of God, mentioning somewhere later that not everyone believes that. --] 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| No, it doesn't say it is genuine. That is not true. It says what the definition of the word is. Then later it says that some people think there is no such thing. That is ''both'' accurate and NPOV, whereas defining a psychic as anyone who says they are psychic is POV and not accurate. As far as bigfoot and Jesus etc., I tried to define psychics according to the PA, which is the same as saying that "According to Christians, Jesus is the Son of God," which is true and NPOV. But you reverted me on that. ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :When exactly was that version I reverted? Looking back, I can't find a version that said "according to the PA". And claiming that there's a difference between "define the phenomena as real" and "say it is genuine" is splitting hairs. You can't just throw "defined as" into a fringe definition to make it NPOV. --] 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:25, 11 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psychic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
"A psychic is a person..."
This introductory phrase is biased because assumes an individual or solely acting person. Firstly, 'psychic' is also an adjective that denotes a phenomenon. Secondly, for there to be psychic relies, by definition, on at least two entities, whereby only one of them is visible in the flesh. Stjohn1970 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I think a more glaring mistake is found in the fact that the word, "claim," is being used in the definition. You can't be something by claiming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:268:9650:13E4:BC76:420C:687C:DA5A (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- True. I can say I'm a fish. But if you look up fish it doesn't say people who claim they is fish. Nonsense. 106.128.97.210 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Typo in Criticism and Research Section: "Investigator Ben Radford stats that..." change stats to states. 140.109.103.218 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Done 💜 melecie talk - 02:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under 'Fraud', there is some issue with the html
alling for a psychic scam can result in a loss of one's entire life savings. In an example given in article by Rob Palmer, a woman gave a psychic $41,642 over a period of 10 weeks.
please fix this :) thanks Jarviscockerslongthumbnail (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- actually, sorry, my copy and paste didnt reveal the error
- it is there in the article Jarviscockerslongthumbnail (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Done --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Palmer, Rob. "Belief in Psychics: What's the Harm and Who's to Blame?". Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 17 November 2022.
Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024
Would someone please add this book to the external links or elsewhere if you think it appropriate? Also this book?
Change subject to psychic phenomena - LetoDidac (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change short description to:
Alleged phenomena whereby the mind perceives information beyond the ordinary senses or interacts with the environment in ways that defy conventional understanding
Change first paragraph of body text to:
Psychic (or psi) phenomena refer to alleged human faculties that allow individuals to perceive or interact with the world beyond the normal physical means, supposedly through mental processes. Alleged psychic abilities are generally categorised into two types; extrasensory perception (ESP), which involves accessing information hidden from the ordinary senses, through means such as telepathy, remote viewing, precognition or clairvoyance; and abilities relating to mental-physical manipulation, such as psychokinesis and energy medicine. While the application of psychic phenomena by practitioners (such as mediums, clairvoyants and energy healers) is widely considered to be pseudoscience, efforts to investigate these claims in controlled conditions are part of the field of parapsychology (or psi research). The Parapsychological Association, an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is the leading international organization for scientists and scholars exploring psi phenomena.
Change - Please create new subsection for ‘Modern day psychic practitioners’ to include the rest of the introductory section focusing on the role of psychic practitioners. LetoDidac (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: See WP:Undue and WP:NPOV. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would appreciate an explanation from @Randomstaplers on reasons for undue. For other user's interest, here are the editorial explanations I included in the submission:
- Explanation for change in short description: 1 'Psychic' is not defined by its practitioners, but rather by the phenomena under consideration(practitioners simply take the name of the phenomena); 2 psychic covers both perception (ESP) but also allged mind-matter interaction.
- Explanation for changes to body text:
- 1 Psychic phenomena need to be defined before their practitioners. 2 examples should prioritize phenomena most under active research, such as precognition, in favor of those that have not been actively studied such as teleportation. 3 the applied practice of psychic phenomena, e.g. chakras, mediumship, can be considered pseudoscience due to lack of scientific method and rigour (I don't think anyone would debate this). 4 the scientific enquiry and debate into psi phenomena as a whole cannot be considered pseudoscience, as this would imply that both critics and proponents are unscientific and not open to debate and improving studies, and that there is therefore no scientific field of study for investigating the purported phenomena despite them being widely believed by the general public; That some scientists have characterised an entire field of study as pseudoscience does not justify such a claim in a wiki page; methodological flaws, mistakes and incorrect conclusions can be seen in all fields of study (e.g. quantum physics), but this does not make those entire fields of study pseudoscience, as this would create closed-mindedness to further research and strongly discourage scientific enquiry. The AAAS recognised parapsychology as a legitimate science due to consistent use of scientific methods. 5 concluding with a link to the mainstream organisation that debates and discusses the issues of psi research will be useful for interested readers. LetoDidac (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @LetoDidac You're making a substantial change to the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article. This means you'll have to (effectively) change the entire article. And you're going to have to find references that prove, specifically, that psychic phenomena are effective (and not just from an advocate's homepage).
- By the way, I did not revert your other edit I warned you about. You'll have to talk to that other editor.⸺(Random)staplers 04:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- C-Class paranormal articles
- Low-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Top-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles