Revision as of 16:07, 5 March 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Annalisa Ventola, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Someguy1221 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

SO good to have you

Annalisa, I read your user page and it is SO good to have you here. There are so many more skeptics than neutrals on Misplaced Pages, and they are pseudoskeptics in the tradition of Randi, not Marcello Truzzi. We need your help so badly. It can be really hard around here, because the pseudoskeptics just ignore what you say. But please don't be put off by it too much. BTW, I looked at your blog and it is really really good. I don't know why I haven't found it before- must not rate on the search engines. I've done a lot of work with the parapsychology article, and Nealparr did a lot with the summary. Maybe you can check us for facts etc.? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making me feel so welcome. I plan to spend a little bit of time on sidelines before I start making any major changes. I admire your and Nealparr's willingness debate the pseudoskeptics. I don't know if I could do it myself...going over the same tiring arguments that have been going on for well over a century...and with people who haven't mastered the terminology or have learned to write in paragraphs on top of that! The blog is only 6 months old, but does pop up in the search engines if you use 'parapsychology' along with any other words.--Annalisa Ventola 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does get very tiresome to debate them. For this reason, my own involvement is going to get less, after the fight over the scientific status of parapsychology has been won or has gone through the Arbitration Committee, if they will take it. This argument over the scientific status has a lot of meaning: for one thing, skeptics would like to say that any journal of parapsychology is just a fringe source, and anything in a Mainstream source takes precedence over it. So you'd get citations to Shermer from Scientific American or something, or Hyman or Alcock citations which are opinion pieces and not peer-reviewed. They also claim that whatever they believe is "mainstream," and whatever is paranormal is "fringe," and covered under WP:FRINGE, so that it must be made terribly clear that the subject is Not mainstream. It's very subtle, and very bound up in the rules of Misplaced Pages. You'll notice that Wikiduduman wanted to get the section out of the main article, and relegate it to just another part of the Controversy in parapsychology section, as it it is only what some fringe nut cases have claimed for parapsychology. Also, Misplaced Pages follows the scientific consensus in any field, and opposing views are less covered. That tells you how important it is. You might want to read my essay-in-progress here.

Some tips for Misplaced Pages: Answer people on their talk pages not yours, so they will get a notice that they have a message. You can also make a better signature, which will make it easy for people to leave you messages. Click the "My preferences" link at the top of the page; go to the "User profile" tab; where it says "Signature," put in something like this:

] _{(] | ])}

Then check the box that says "Raw signature", and save it.

It will look like this:

Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)}

Also, on the talk pages, indent one more space by using one more : before your paragraph than the last person- or if it is indented 4 or 5 times, start fresh with no indent. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology

No problem for the tips. You signature makes it easier for me! Yes, there really is no question about parapsychology. But there are a lot of questioners. I don't really know much about how the Arbitration Committee works, but I am hoping that we can take this case to them. We ought to be able to cite a scientific consensus in the field. This would protect the main article from Randi-ish skepticism. I actually would include a lot of what Hyman has to say, maybe Alcock. As I did in the Controversy in parapsychology article (they're re-doing it now, as people complained about the criticism/response format). Hyman is at least educated. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't need to have people from the PA or anywhere else come and vote on the ArbCom, if it ever gets that far. That isn't how it works, and we aren't even to mediation. I'm sure it would be nice to have people who are educated in parapsychology here to edit the page, though (: What V-man737 said was right, I learned. At first I though he was talking about sock puppets, but meat puppets are different.

Well, now that I've read the rest of you post, it's interesting that Hyman and I would agree on about the time horizon of parapsychology. Of course I think they have results already, though they aren't very meaningful on a personal level. I mean, they don't really solve existential problems. But I have a funny sneaking suspicion that the weirdness of the universe is deeper than even parapsychology -even the New Age- suspects. Thus establishing solid results will be the very first step on a very long road which will leave us not quite human by current definitions. That they call POV around here.

"I think that the questioners are a small, but vocal minority. As it stands, much of the parapsychology article caters too much to this minority. The tone is too defensive." Thus the need to get the status of parapsychology as a science straightened out. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD

Don't tiptoe around. I can already see you know what you're doing editing! Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't tiptoe around. Be bold. Don't need to worry (: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

I think we agree that the parapsychology needs some serious restructing. Come on over to my sandbox and what we can work out.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a more beautiful sandbox : ) I won't have time to work on it until maybe this weekend, but that looks like a great structure. Over in the parapsychology article I'm just trying to keep the peace, which is harder there than in most Misplaced Pages articles. If we can flush out those sections with some really great content, it might end up as a featured article one day.

Btw, love the blog and it's a small world. I'm the editor over at Paranormal Magazine (in process of selling it). I was going to link to your Psi article when I got a chance and I appreciate your heads up on Rhea White. She will be sorely missed. Her approach to EHEs and the background papers she wrote when starting the EHE Network was very inspiring. I'm not an academic. I just write pop-paranormal pieces, but I have much respect for people like her.

--Nealparr 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding links to your own blog

Please don't add links to your own blog to articles, as you did here. This is considered a potential conflict of interest and is also prohibited by WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Please read those policies if you haven't already. Also, do you have a source verifiying that the blog is the official one of the Parapsychological Association? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

I'll look into your sandbox later (: About the blog, I think there ain't no way to win that one. However, if Milo is uncivil to you, you need to report it. He has been getting away with murder, and needs to be confronted. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a great plan. Perhaps we need to describe the scope of parapsychological infrastructure and research earlier. That will give a sense of the beast. The Parapsychology today(?) section should be rather larger than some, and near the top because from the way you've got it it seems like no one will know the size of the research etc that is actually going on. Remember we are not only writing for those who come not knowing anything, but for those -the majority- who have heard it is a fringe thing pretty much synonymous with UFOs and the Flat Earth, and they would assume up front that it isn't actually studied in universities, nor does it have peer reviewed journals etc. They will probably come from other pages, such as mediumship or psychic or whatever, from the more popular terms. They will have noticed that they are mostly about popular culture (they probably will be eventually).

Well, anyway, your plan looks great. That's the only thing I'd change, just to give people a feel up front for how the field looks today. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Milo is indeed more rational than several I have come across, and more civil. He still put a personal attack template on my page for saying I thought some of the tactics used on the John Edward page were reprehensible. I can say that I believe he sometimes quotes the rules wrong.

Anyway, it looks like you have a great plan for the article, and it would indeed be great to have it recognized. Do you envision a total re-write, or addition and re-organization? I get bored re-writing stuff. Also, I can't get to a library. But as long as there isn't quarreling on the talk pages, I'm good for some copy editing, perhaps more.

There are only 2 or 3 main people really interested in this article- plug it in here. Nealparr's edits stick- and he knows a lot about the paranormal generally. Kazuba's usually don't, but he knows tons, and is skeptical but not a pseudoskeptic. Simoes contribution was mainly to get it sourced- he deleted nearly the whole article a few days after I came to it. If Rikstar had stayed, he'd have been a valuable skeptic- he knows a lot, but I couldn't get him to stick around. Carrionluggage has a bad reaction to the paranormal, because his wife was mad and committed suicide while talking, if I remember, about faeries or something- you see the name. If there is a debate, Lantoka, though skeptical, is very neutral, and helps smooth things over. I'm telling you this because they're things I'd have liked to have found out from somewhere besides experience. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa, when you say " the appropraite literature review", you aren't talking about literature which requires one to get one or more very expensive memberships in orgs like the PA, are you? Because that is really too much to ask. I can't afford it, or I would have done a better job with the article. We should give more info, if that is the case. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)