User talk:Martinphi/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Please see this proposal. The way, the truth, and the light 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin, A brief note

The arbitration committee has barely started to vote and hasn't even drafted everything that they should be voting for yet. I just wanted to inform you of this en case you might have any false pretenses that the arbitration committee has somehow made a decision. They have yet to make any decisions. I hope you keep this in mind before jumping to any conclusions concerning what decisions they might make. Thanks.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The date today is June 21, 2007. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean?Wikidudeman (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I still don't know what you're trying to say. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
...Mermaids are chanting... Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok well, If you aren't going to take me seriously then be my guest. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking you seriously. Solve the puzzle. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time for games. I'm done here. Have a nice day. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] current stuff

Nothing to do yet as an admin; I reverted as a edit. I'll keep a watch on it. Personally, i see no harm it putting it in a category like this--it should go in all significant categories, because there's no way to settle the justification. I have doubts myself about whether it is part of psychology, but enough people think so that it's a rational category to apply. DGG 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough people... as in a coordinated team of people purposefully working together on articles to ignore policies to push their own POV onto a large number of articles, per the current arbitration they are going through. DreamGuy 05:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
advice: ignore the attitude & the attacks. I know that's easy to say, but it does help to keep focused on the article. DGG 03:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Attacks? No... this statement of yours is more a violation of WP:NPA than anything I have done. I am pointing out when people violate policy. That's not an attack, that's calling someone on bad behavior. DreamGuy 05:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
and, as i said, if he goes to 3RR, he will be blocked. But I don't think he will--the pattern is that he just keeps coming back, which is much harder to find reason for action. As I've said, I'll watch, but if I'm not here and you've got documented 3RR, just go to AN/3RRDGG 04:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking this off my watch list, Please just ask at 3RR; if anyone thinks I may be biased, it is useless to protest otherwise. And enough for tonight. DGG 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
3RR is usually almost automatically enforced upon presentation of the 4 diffs, if the time is literally with the 24 hours. It doesn't matter right or wrong. DGG 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsycholgy and psychology

Parapsychology is not at all controversial in psychology or psychiatry. They don't think much of it. It has yet to prove itself. [Ref Positive and negative experimental psi results in psychology and parapsychology journals by M. Billig, Journal of the Society of Psychical Research 46, 1972] In parapsychology delusions and the quality of an experiment and experimenters' statements are rarely critically examined within its own school. The use of trickery on subjects, which is often used in psychology and psychiatry experiments, is looked upon as being unfair in parapsychology. [Ref Reflections of "Project Alpha": Scientific Experiment or conjuror's illusion? by Marcello Truzzi, Zetetic Scholar 12/13, 1987; Ref Parpsychology: The Controversial Science by Richard Boughton, Ballatine Books, 1991,Chapter 5:Contemporary Psychokenesis Research] (Joseph Banks Rhine refused to use blank cards, as suggested by Houdini's close friend Joseph Rinn.)ref Sixty Years of Psychical Research : Houdini and I Among the Spirits, by Joseph Rinn, Truth Seeker, 1950 The skeptical comments and criticisms by master magicians are not welcome in parapsychology and are rarely heeded by the big wigs. [Ref Magician's Effort to Foil Scientists Raises Questions by William J. Broad, New York Times, 15 Feb, 1983; Ref Project Alpha: Science vs. Science, by Loyd M. Auerbach, ASPR Newsletter April, 1983] Within psychology and psychiatry textbooks the discoveries by master magicians are highly valued. ref Psychology by Carole Wade and Carol Tavris, Harper Collins Publishers User:Kazuba 04 July 2007

[edit] WP:BLP

Please do not use the talk page to express your personal opinions of the subject of articles, in particular on WP:BLPs. See WP:TALK#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. Discuss the article and not the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair

I may have a copy in my achives. But I don't think so. But I do have something that is very interesting that was sent to me by Michael Thalbourne long ago when I was gathering info on Project Alpha. At that time it was unpublished, and Thalbourne was nice enough to send me a copy. It can be found at http://www.aiprinc.org/para-c05_Thalbourne_1995.pdf Science Verses Showmanship: A History of the Randi Hoax by Michael A. Thalbourne. It is very interesting. Thalbourne claimed there should have been boundaries to Randi's deception. If Thalbourne was knowlegable of Uri Geller, Mina Crandon, Eusapia Palladino, etc. he should have known when you set out to deceive scientists or anyone else there are no limits, or mercy. Scientists, like everyone else who are uninformed, can be very naive when it comes to professional deception. It is a dark world. Magicians have learned much of their art from cheats and thieves. I strongly believe this knowledge should not be public domain. You study, practice and earn the secrets. There are people who call themselves magicians who certainly are NOT magicians. They are not even close. I sent a copy of Thalbourne's letter to Paul Kurtz. It was NOT printed in the Skeptical Inquirer as I requested. Nice to hear from you. User:Kazuba 7 Jul 2007

[edit] D.D. Home

It is IMPOSSIBLE to know exactly what were the REAL conditions and IMPOSSIBLE to know just exactly what Home ACTUALLY did! He was protected and pampered by his clients. It is important to remember people want paranormal phenomena and they will even create it out of nothing in their own minds. Magicians demonstrated this to 19th century psychic researchers by experiment. Notice even in the modern day with Alpha, Geller, Edward, etc. the investigators WANT to let phenomena occur. They do NOT want it hindered. They do not care about controlled conditions. This is an old story repeated over and over. Best book out now on Home is The First Psychic: The Peculiar Mystery of a Notorious Victorian Wizard by Peter Lamont. It is quite good. Remember this too, when one studies the past there are conflicting stories. You do NOT pick out the one you LIKE the best. And people who write about themselves and their associates want to make them look GOOD. That is just the way it is.User:Kazuba 18 Jul 2007

[edit] Your edit

Your removal of valid information from Sylvia Browne is disruptive of Wikipedia. You removed information which is pertinent in the introductory paragraphs about any controversial subject, namely that journalists have pointed out the subject's failures. You claimed the information would be better placed later in the article. But rather than do that, you actually deliberately removed it from the article. That information had three citations which validated it. I am restoring the information, to the introduction where it belongs. Please do not delete it again. Moriori 03:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Please don't take such an angry tone when leaving messages on other people's talk pages. The lead has to be changed from your version, because while it is sourced, the fact that journalists have debunked Browne is not relevant to the article- only the content of their debunking. There is all sorts of sourced information we could put in the lead, but being sourced does not make it OK to put it there.

The material you have been reverting focuses on journalists, and contains unnecessary WP:WTAs. My version contains only the information. Please read WP:LEAD for more.

The main thing is: we aren't talking about journalists, and they are not authorities. I'll change it to reflect this, but please read WP:LEAD and WP:WTA, and try -in articles- to focus on the subject, so that we can avoid this kind of thin in the future. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


P.S. I've put in what I hope will be an acceptable compromise. The sentence " In 2007, Randi exposed her as a fraud on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. " is so POV that it really couldn't stay in. If you wish, we can get a second opinion, and perhaps mediation. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


Oh, I forgot to say that this is not a normal article. It's true that your addition would not be allowable in a normal article, but it is especially to be avoided in a biography of a living person. We need to be very careful with those. I'd ask you to read up on WP:BLP, also. Thanks, Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bleep poll purpose update

Due to continued confusion around the scope of the Bleep OR straw poll, I’ve added a clarification note to say that the poll is primarily meant to see if everyone agrees that a majority of that content identified as unsourced or improperly sourced OR in the Bleep sandbox, is indeed OR. Please feel free to change your vote if necessary. Please post a message on my talk page if any of this is unclear. Thanks for your patience! Dreadstar † 17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology FA

The Parapsychology article is currently being nominated for Featured Article. If you believe it's Featured Article material then please go here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parapsychology and show your support or add input for improvements that can quickly be made. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks Martin, appreciate your comment on excess Randi.Julia Rossi 10:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding ArbCom

Martinphi, in this diff, you say, "We don't have to introduce. Please read up on policy." Does the policy that you're talking about stem from the most recent ArbCom?

Also, in this diff, you talk about a new power that's been given out by the ArbCom. Can you explain what this power is? Thank you, Antelan talk 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. No
  1. It isn't a power new to Wikipedia. It is that the decisions of the ArbCom eliminated certain POV pushing which we had been trying to prevent anyway- thus giving power to NPOV editors. I was warning against mis-interpreting this an excuse to push POV in any direction. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Antelan talk 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

I was told by Dreadstar that you were the one who pushed the issues regarding terminology that skeptics kept getting inserted into articles and category names, such as "purported medium" and such. I spend my time editing primarily one article -- Jane Roberts -- and I don't really know how to do a lot of Wiki stuff (Dreadstar suggested I give you a "Barnstar", but I don't know how), so I don't know how you managed it all -- but I do want to thank you for your efforts. It really steamed me when the skeptics got the category changed from "Psychic" to "Purported Psychic". Thanks!--Caleb Murdock 01:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Here, let me help:

The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for your "Purportedly Paranormal" efforts! :) Caleb Murdock 01:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)