Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:58, 5 August 2007

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.

Skepticism Start‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Oct 05 - Feb 07 Feb 07 - Mar 07 Mar 07 - May 07 May 07 -

Assessment comments

"Psychic senses" section could use some work, maybe with links, and probably changing the last paragraph to reflect "five normal senses", thus eliminating repetition. "Seventh sense" being claricognizance needs to be clarified, as no "sixth" is named. "Fiction" section could be longer. A separate "References" section listing the references alphabetically would be useful as well. John Carter 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

Note:copied from user page discussion):

I don't recall this as being part of the ArbCom ruling. It looks like it came from this, but I don't believe the arbitrator actually said to use that specific wording; and the statement from the arbitrator: "I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter," leaves me with the understanding that the original wording was fine and didn't need to be changed at all...much less being "literally per the ArbCom". Looks like the editor who added it is willing to edit war over it, so I thought I'd get another opinion on it...and you seem like the perfect choice..;) – Dreadstar † 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Given the context and the specific labeling in the edit summary, it would indeed appear to be a provocative edit. 2) It goes against my own personal interpretation of the arb 3) "nonphysical forces" is an inaccurate description and needs to be changed regardless of anything else. 4) "Apparently" could be viewed as POV pushing as it implies that sufficient empirical/circumstantial evidence has been presented to attest to psychic powers being paranormal as far as general consensus goes.

You can revert if you wish, you'll get no complaints from me. I think that it could potentially be reverted on POV ground alone. - perfectblue 19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good comment on the Arbitration page; and I totally agree with you. I would rather see a consensus discussion take place on the Talk:Psychic page than to just revert the disputed edit again - I think it might just lead to edit warring, which is one of the basic things ArbCom was really addressing with its rulings. If we are interpreting the edit correctly as a provocative or WP:POINT edit, then it's unfortunate that Uninvited Co's hope seems to have been missed: "I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)". – Dreadstar † 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should post a copy of the above discussion on the Talk:Psychic page? – Dreadstar † 19:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to discuss the article on its talk page, in full view of other editors? Antelan 22:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, per request by User:Antelan. – Dreadstar † 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't want to move it myself in case there would be an objection. Antelan 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully PB won't mind...;) – Dreadstar † 22:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Point one

Antelan, please explain why you are making non-consensus edits and edit warring to keep them in. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Equally, you "edit-warred", to use your term, to take my edit out. Pot, kettle, black. I don't think a discussion introduced in the way you've introduced it is going to go anywhere productive, frankly. Antelan 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently or not apparently

Apparently is apparently not a word we have to use and is more a wording choice. We can get a straw poll going or just comment. I don't personally see anything wrong with using "apparently", but I think once is sufficient to do any framing of the topic and it doesn't have to be repeated multiple times. --Nealparr 23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, "Apparently" is one of the types of words which the ArbCom ruled we don't need to use any more. We follow the ArbCom decision, not what a single Arbitrator said- even if by some stretch of the immagination he meant we needed to change it when he said there was nothing wrong with the current article. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Top-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles