User talk:Martinphi/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sandbox, etc

So far, I have no problem with Milo. I think he's been more rational than others that I've seen so far here. He's right that I shouldn't have linked my own site. It doesn't mean that it doesn't belong there...just that I shouldn't be the one to put it there. I didn't really understand the rules. No big deal.

I agree that more should be said up front in the parapsychology article. I was thinking about that today. Wikipedia guidelines say that the introduction should summarize the article, and can be up to four paragraphs long, so I think that we can get the important points across there. A well written introduction will be key. I hope to chip away at it some more this weekend. Feel free to add content where you see fit. Making parapsychology a featured article is a worthy and attainable goal. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I do envision, more or less, a total re-write. However, I think that there is a portion of material from the current parapsychology article that could be imported into the sandbox version, just so long as the citations are converted to APA style. (By the way, if you're looking for an example of a wikipedia article that uses that style, look at Humanistic psychology.)
When I speak of a 'literature review', I mean a source in which an author does a particularly good job of discussing all of the previous research in a particular area. They don't necessarily need to come from expensive journals, but a good number of them do. However, you would be surprised at what you can find electronically online. There are some good pdfs at the PA site or the free parapsychology articles at Looksmart. I also have some stuff that I could email you whenever I find a moment of free time.--Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smith Jones

please stops vandalising the page with user:mgunn that is not aright thinkg to do discuss it on the talk page before vandalizing the page. Smith Jones 03:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
i accused you because you were (possibly ba ccident] trinyg to star a reverting war wth another editor, which is against all wikipedia laws and policeis. i thinky osu hould should stop because it would lead to conlficting edits and stop the safety of wikipedia. Smith Jones 04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychic

I much prefer an outright declaration of the skeptical position to having words that just sound like sneering, or defining psychic first as meaning a person with paranormal powers, then defining it as anyone who says they have paranormal powers. Mgunn wanted two definitions in the same paragraph, "arguably paranormal" and "professed abillity".

But I'd rather have it come from a particular source and just say what it is, as on the parapsychology page. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Just come right out and say it. "Psychics are people with psychic abilities. Whether there are actually any psychics is often disputed." Of course people will probably mistakenly rate neutrality line by line, but those two sentences together are neutrally worded. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 05:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science

Hi Martinphi,

Science works with observational, hypothesis creation and hypothesis testing rigour.

For something to be accepted by modern science it needs to be replicable and placed up for peer-review. This does not mean a journal of parapsychology btw as this is not scientific peer review.

EVP does not measure up to any of these arguments and therefore has not been scientifically validated.

In the same way that someone asserts that the moon is composed of camembert I do not have to have evidence that it does not. It is for those who argue against a normal, rational, reasonable and predictable world to show that it is.

That is why it is appropriate to state that there is no scientific basis for the existance of EVP.

Thanks,

Candy 10:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Candy,

I'm sorry you don't think that parapsychological peer-reviewed journals are science. They do, however, meet WP:V, and parapsychology is a field of science. If science has not considered a thing, then it is our responsibility to say so. Science can conditionally rejected something by doing experiments which, while meeting all requirements which those who say the experiment is reproducible have set forth, fail to reproduce the phenomena. If this is the situation, then it is our responsibility to communicate that also. The EVP introduction accurately states the situation -or it did the last time I reverted it. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clairsentience

I'm just too kind to just take all his stuff out. But I'm thinking that perhaps we should just make it a redirect to parapsychology or psychic or clairvoyance? Then deal with it on that page? I mean, what's one to do? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Beats me. As of right now there are 1,669,586 articles in English. I don't have the energy to make them all Wikipedia-like. I'd rather deal with ones that have promise. I was saying redirect from day one.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In theory, you don't slam the newbies. You just hope that they eventually get the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where articles try to be for a general audience and not just New Age types. You try to help them out. In this particular case that would take patience, but some progress has been made. So really the decision is to either try and help them understand, just redirect the thing anyway and deal with the complaining, or just move on to another article. I choose the last one, but the first is more in line with the idea of Wikipedia. On a more popular article it would have already been dealt with, but this article is really obscure. If there were a stat counter on it, I'd be surprised if there were more than a hundred hits since it was first started.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] hi guys

i see youve redirected the clairsentience article.... let me ask....what was the point of the weeks of discussions and rewrites if you guys were going to redirect it anyway....you should have told me t get lost out of here...... what was the point of it all? why did i listen to you ? at all? why did i remove all personal references? why did i reference and source all of my matereal diligently and in great detail ? why did i edit and re edit for style and content ? why did i make additional references to religios , anthropological ,socialogical , philosophical ,medical , physics , chemistry , botany , mental health etc so that all views were included and respected? why did i fulfill all of the above hurdles and hoops to fulfill wikpedia formatting and guidlines for you too to delete months of hard work and effort. your actions are without integrity or honour .....Thesource42 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clairsentience article redirect ?

Hi ..... whoever removed the clairsentience article and made it redirect ... can you please try and respect that the article that was there had evolved over a couple of months of discussion and many rewrites and multiple edits which involved much discussion over a long period...... .........i could delete this clairvoyance article.... but i wont because revert and delete wars then stupidly take place which is a real shame when a library becomes a bar room brawl......

..... i hope you can respect the clairsentience article...

..... ive been clairsentient for most of my adult life and it wasnt easy to come this far and to struggle for decades to articulate my experience in a way which makes rational sense to the world at large of which the clairsentience article is a manifest example..... so please try and respect the vast amount of struggle and work which has gone into it....

[edit] I'm off

I'm off to Japan and just thought I'd drop you a quick note! I also left a note on Lantoka's page about the personal attack accusations. Check it out when you get a chance and I'll talk to you when I get back! Dreadlocke ☥ 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Consensus" version of the lead

Consensus is a very important thing on Wikipedia. What you restored at Electronic voice phenomenon was not a "consensus" lead since there had been no determination of the consensus. Please avoid using this kind of argumentative phrasing in the future. --ScienceApologist 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't make POV edits

Please don't unilaterally remove content as you did at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Your edits weren't discussed on the talk page, and if you look there, there's disagreement with your edits - consensus is that those topics are considered pseudoscientific, and trying to give the impression that they are not volates WP:NPOV. Please stop making POV edits misreprenting the level of acceptance of paranormal topics. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I had those citation requests in for quite a while. If you don't give a citation, the content may be removed. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)