User talk:Martinphi/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Using quotes and "purported"

I'm sorry to be suddenly disagreeing with you, but I do feel that there is a place for qualifications of controversial concepts and assertions. Thus, when I originally had the word "channelled" in quotes in the Jane Roberts article, I think the quotes were needed. Here is the sentence:

Jane Roberts (1929 – 1984) was an American author, psychic and trance medium or spirit medium who "channelled" a personality named Seth.

Without the quotes, we are saying that channelling is a fact. I believe it is, but for purposes of an encyclopedia, we need to qualify that concept.

I also feel that there are times when "purported" is needed -- again, to qualifying a controversial concept or assertion. Thus:

She also purportedly channelled other personalities, including the philosopher William James and the painter Paul Cézanne, both deceased.

By the way, why did you remove that sentence from the article?--Caleb Murdock 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


According to the recent ArbCom, when we say words like "channelled" we don't really imply that it is real or not. Rather, it is a cultural artefact, and as long as the channelling article contains skepticism, we're OK just using the word. The reader will know that the paranormality of channelling is disputed.
"Purported" was also addressed by the ArbCom. But I took that whole sentence out because it doesn't seem to be mentioned again in the article, and we're supposed to be summarizing the article.
It's really worthwhile to read the ArbCom. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the whole ArbCom thing through twice, so I understood all the points. I actually found it quite interesting, though some things confused me, such as the way a point would be restated several times in different ways.

From the perspective of someone who believes in channelling, I still think that for an encyclopedia to state it as a fact without some kind of qualification is very poor form for an encyclopedia. I'm most concerned that the encyclopedia maintain the same objective and professional standards that other encyclopedias do.

Despite the arbitration, the word "purported" has its uses. I think the point of the arbitration was to get the skeptics to stop dropping the word before every noun they didn't like.

About the sentence you deleted, are you saying that something can't be stated in the opening paragraph if it isn't expounded on later in the article? I don't really understand that. It seems to me that the opening paragraph of an article is an introduction more than it is a summary.--Caleb Murdock 03:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just found a spot for that sentence at the bottom of the article.--Caleb Murdock 03:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DreamGuy

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2 regards contributing to an arbitration discussion. --DashaKat 22:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comments from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2, as the first is an arbitration that occured in 2004. I was under the impression that they were concurrent.
Also, you might want to check the edit...I screwed up you signature, and don't know how to make it right. --DashaKat 16:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ganzfeld experiment

Re your edit to the PK article intro, the Ganzfeld experiment is 100% telepathy/rv related isn't it? The article there even calls it the "Gansfeld telepathy experiment." I don't see the connection to PK. The RNG lab experiments I think are the lab evidence for PK (controversial though they may be) and the more famous outside-of-lab evidence are the spontaneous and metal phenomena cases. I'd like to ask you reconsider your edit. Thanks. 5Q5 18:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right! Total brain fart (I reverted it). Although in defense, there is a lot of talk that psychokinesis and telepathy et al are actually the same thing. Still, the spontaneous stuff is not convincing, at least in the current scientific culture, and I think they might put more emphasis on RNG data. Don't you think? –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I took your excellent link and used it as a reference, revising the intro line in question at PK. There is a lot of published documentation on spontaneous PK; in the past sometimes called poltergeist cases. 5Q5 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Psychic surgery, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ornis (t) 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how all the pushers say this, lol. Seems to be the same psychological phenomenon as what you see in history: those who called others evil were themselves evil, as with the Inquisition.. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
LMAO your persecution complex is showing. See Pyramid scam as a comparable example, it's described as fraudulent in the first paragraph, it's illegal in most western nations ( like psychic surgery ), and despite the overwhelming evidence that it is fraud, millions are still sucked in. ornis (t) 23:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's a fraud. That is irrelevant. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. The point is the article is nothing like parapsych, herbalism, alt.med or anything like that, we don't have to dance around the issue or give any weight to the notion that it might be real, since the evidence and consensus is so heavily against such a conclusion. ornis (t) 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We have to follow NPOV. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we do, and describing it as fraud, is perfectly in line with npov.
ornis (t) 23:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Won't work. Please understand policy before editing. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, actually I do understand the policy, clearly much better than you do. I suggest you re-read them carfully this time. ornis (t) 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
ConfuciusOrnis, I think Martin deserves at least a personalized note left on his talk page opposed to some generic warning that he'll be banned that you might leave an anonymous IP. Martin has been editing here for a long time and it's possible to work things out with him if you try. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman, that is totally nice of you, thanks (= –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 13:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astral Projection

I just want to say well done on your contributions to the Astral Projection page. After my exchange with a certain opinionated skeptic I just walked away from it without any further involvement. Needless to say you have brought the article up to a whole new standard and have even brought more balance into the article where previously there was none. Keep up the good work.--Godfinger 08:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man- glad to be of help. The sources were already there, which is the hardest part. POV-pushers don't win in the end if we stick with it (: –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess the lad is still at college and has only just discovered the God Delusion. It's natural to adopt a Dawkinesque pose when one is still trying to find oneself.--Godfinger 12:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we have a lot of those it seems. Finding one's self by trying as hard as one can to not find one's self (: –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astral Projection

At first, I didn't like what you were doing on Astral Projection (minor nitpicking, really), but to avoid a revert/edit war, I decided to just let you do your thing and see what happened. Now I'm glad that I chose to assume good faith and watch what you did, because now I really like how the article is coming along! Keep up the good work, I'm backing you 100% on this. --spazure (contribs) (review) 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad you like it. I'm almost finished with my part of it, as others are better able to put in more information. I'll probably just drop by to keep it NPOV and help with the sources. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion wanted

Do you have an opinion about the deletion of Quackwatch ? ℒibrarian2 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion about that one (QW), I appreciate the time. About the one you left for me,what is your opinion? ℒibrarian2 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography and Research

If one looks at the biographies of Charles Darwin, Joseph Banks Rhine, Albert Einstein or Thomas Edison one plainly sees many examples of their research in their different fields of study: evolution, parapsychology, physics and electrictity. How is it possible to seperate the biography of a famous scientist from his pursuit? Dean Radin is parapsychology. Selectively skipping over his research material in parapsycholgy is poor biography. Materials I have found on Dean Radin were picked at random. Kazuba 16:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is the only criticism on the Radin page

"Radin's field of study is regarded as scientifically controversial. Skeptics have argued that Radin's work is pseudoscience." Radin, and many other scientists over the past century, have responded to criticisms with additional research.

These are the only sentences criticizing Radin's work. There are no more. This is not 22%. There is no analysis of Radin's work with the specific facts from Radin's and Utts' own data and missing data, as I have recently suggested with the results of the 27 experiments covered in the Radin and Utts abstract; I found at random. It should be shown Radin's experiments do not always get positive results, (and some data may be curiously missing). The hits and misses, the whole picture, is very important when asking the question why cannot Radin accept Randi's million dollar challenge, when Radin is convinced he has shown himself the process of PSI from his own data as produced from cheaper than a million dollars experiments. This is a VERY important question to ponder. Kazuba 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology is now a Featured Article

The Paranormal Barnstar
I'm awarding you this barnstar for your having worked hard to help me get Parapsychology to FA status. Congratulations. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Wikidudeman, that's totally nice of you. It's great that the article made FA! ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of main entry style at Survivalism (disambiguation)?

Hello. Could you please explain why you removed the primary topic style (these edits). Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 08:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that style. I put it back correctly. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Spoon

Isn't that kind of odd Radin has the photo of a different spoon rather than the one he bent. I never noticed that before. Thought it might be nice to point it out to the reader, so it wasn't missed. Seems like if it were me I would have a photo of THE spoon that bent in my hand. I would think THAT spoon would be rather special to you, and you would want to show IT off to validate your story. Whatever. You were quick! Kazuba 00:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Mis-read it. Thanks for catching my error! Kazuba 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Martinphi for the offer of archiving. I'd appreciate any help I can get. I'm lost on this thing. Most of the time when it comes to the Wikipedia I haven't the slightest idea what you guys are talking about.Kazuba 04:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's this?

Martinphi, What's this? at the bottom of the page? There is a link to a comment of mine proposing that parapsychology be put into a FA category called "Paranormal and Supernatural" and to the far right you have a sign that says "POV" and then "connect the dots". What is this supposed to mean? Please explain. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a comment on you. I'm just collecting useful or fun things on that page. I unfortunately thought I'd need that link. Actually what I thought is that if you kept up the good work I'd support your next RfA, but also put that up for others to review. As I said, you keep being NPOV for a year, I'll support you. That edit was far from NPOV, but not enough to tip a balance. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Rsp on my page. We can continue discussion there. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Martin, You link to an edit of mine (which you greatly misinterpreted BTW) and then have a big sign beside it which says "POV, connect the dots". Don't claim it's a "useful or fun thing" when you do such things. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's in my userspace. If you just look at the page history, you'll notice that I'm just collecting things, and that just happened to go at the bottom. Now I just put a {{clear}} there so it isn't seemingly connected any more. But it wasn't there for public consumption, or I'd have made sure it didn't look like that. In fact, I didn't even view the page after saving it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
No need to copy-paste the discussion to here. Let's keep it on my userpage. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's good you've clarified that. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)