Talk:Telepathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Telepathy article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Recent edits and mediation

THB, you've made a lot of edits to this article recently, and most of them I agree with. Your most recent ones I don't agree with, however. This article is supposed to be under mediation, and I've just left a message with our ostensible mediator asking him to become involved. In the meantime, I ask that you hold off on editing at this point. In return I won't revert your latest changes; we can discuss them under mediation. KarlBunker 18:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Followup: Since you have continued to edit, and are apparently afraid to engage in a discussion of this or any other issue, I'll just go ahead and make some edits of my own. KarlBunker 05:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Davkal, the introduction is looking much better and more balanced. -THB 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of the Field

The quotation provided here is rather incomplete and in my opinion misleading. I see the same source is cited on the parapsychology page, and now having read both I have come away from the article with an entirely different opinion on the scientific concensus of telepathy. The source actually says:

Does psi exist? Most academic psychologists don't think so. A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner &amph; Monnet, 1979). - http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html

Currently, this source, through removal of context, is being presented as if it favours telepathy, when the full quote is far more balanced. JammyB 00:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Theories of telepathy

This section, the most important part of an encyclopedia on telepathy, is almost non-existent--the section on fictional telepathy is larger. -THB 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experiments

The experiments section describes experiments in almost as much detail as they are on their main pages. Perhaps they should be summarized here since they have their own articles elsewhere with a note "for main article see: xxxxx" etc. -THB 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page split

I really must protest the recent page split that happened without any discussion or even a talk page comment. For an article this controversial it's very bad manners, at the least, and could be seen as a POV fork. CovenantD 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Scientific investigation of telepathy is important enough to deserve its own article. I would assume good faith on the part of that editor. Everyone here wants Wikipedia to remain neutral POV. I opened a discussion on that possibility above. The telepathy article clearly refers to the new article. The section on experimentation was almost the sum total of the individual articles on each experiments or group of experiments. -THB 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not discussing the move. I'll do so next time. My reason for splitting the article has pretty much been summed up by THB; you can't have a telepathy article and dwell on the science experiments. -- Selmo (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've long said that this article was POV in favor of skeptisism, so I understand your desires, and appreciate that you now understand that discussion first would have been preferable. (For what it's worth, I don't have feelings one way or another on the split itself, just the lack of discussion.). CovenantD 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] how many thoughts that grass is green can you fit into a matchbox

I note the following from the main article "and since the physical components of the mind are all much larger than this". Since nobody has any real firm idea what constitutes the conscious mind and what its physical components might even be (if they exist), let alone what size they are, I think this might need to be described in rather more speculative terms.Davkal 08:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic Model Theoreom by Radwan B.

Is this original research? -00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose we remove pending some info about sources.Davkal 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. -THB 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal For External Reference

I would like to propose the following article for an external links:

The Existence Of The Faculty Of Telepathy

Psychic - Clairvoyance Or Telepathy?

Spiritism And Telepathy - Mrs. Leonora E. Piper

Yogi Philosophy - Telepathy and Clairvoyance

Smithville 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citation

A citation is requested for "these quantum effects must be negligible". I've checked a few sources looking for this, and I haven't specifically found any mentioning that the effects are neglibible, but I have found some saying that it is incorrect to try to account for telepathy using Quantum Mechanics. Will that do? Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy is not real. There is no scientific proof for it. It does not exist. I'm surprised how this article describes it like it's a real thing, or even a possibility. What a shame. Gary84 07:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Gary84, I agree. Yet the NPOV banner was put up with the comment that it's biased against the paranormal! I agree, the opening needs to establish that this is fictional or pseudo before describing it "as real", which is the case of other pages. It sure beats using imperfect tenses all throughout. —Długosz 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well Bubba73, I'm of the opinion that telepathy can't be explained by quantum mechanics as now formulated, and I've heard the same thing (though I'd like to see your sources for interest). It should say "some physicists", though, because quite a few really good ones have spoken of QM as a possible explanation for telepathy. But I don't think the sentence is relevant, because no one knows how small an effect could account for telepathy, so a negligible amount might do the trick. Also, I think that it is incorrect that the components of the brain are too large for quantum effects. There are interactions at the ends of ummm... dendrites, the little thingies which stretch out from the neurons, and they don't quite touch, and sparks basically go between them. Martinphi 22:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Science needs to show that there is some effect in need of explaining before "some physicists" propose explanations for it. At best, it's playful speculation. It is NOT an indication that there is a possibility for it. As for the gaps between nerve cells, they are spanned by large molecules moving between them. To look for specific citations about lack of QM in human cells, I recall seeing that in reaction to Penrose's book. Perhaps searching for things written in response to "Emperor's New Mind" a few years after the book was first published will turn up some hard numbers. —Długosz 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I looked in some books but couldn't find anything specific - just that QM doesn't allow it. I didn't think about that book, though. I have it and I'll try to have a look in a few days. Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe that book isn't the place to look, but responses to it, as you said. Bubba73 (talk), 04:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


People need to watch out for NPOV here. You're talking very authoritatively about an aspect of parapsychology, an entire field of science. It won't work to assert your opinion about whether telepathy is real or not. In point of fact, there are experiments which say it is real. The most detailed and authoritative criticisms (for instance, those by Hyman) only go so far as to say that more research is needed. Under these circumstances, this article won't be able push the reader one way or the other as to the reality of telepathy. But, as would be the case in many fields, if the evidence is presented neutrally the reader may go away with the impression that there is telepathy. This is as it should be according to policy. Martinphi (Talk|Contribs) 08:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woo-Woos

I'm looking at the ref in "Scientific Investigation of Telepathy," section where it says

"Detractors counter that Radin is too accepting of studies as "reputable", and that if Radin or anyone else has scientific proof, it is strange that he does not apply for the Randi Prize[7]."

Well, I think we should include a quote from that page, if y'all think it is a good source. Otherwise, perhaps we should find a different, less reputable source. How about this quote?:

"Really? Well, Dean Radin has been remarkably silent in the nine years since his book came out. He’s of course eligible for the million-dollar prize if he can produce one example – from his book or from anywhere else – that proves the case for parapsychology. Why haven’t I heard from him, let alone from Lou Gentile…? Just what can it be that prevents these woo-woos from applying for and winning the prize?"

Now, as someone who thinks that the parapsychologists are onto something, I think this is a great source, and a great quote. I'm just putting it here so the skeptics can have their say. NPOV, you know. Martinphi 04:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S., the following has appeared in the same section: "However, medical drug testing is an example of the standard of proof to which telepathy studies would have to reach in order to convince skeptics." As I'm sure you all know, Dean Radin uses the example of medical research done to prove aspirin is effective in helping prevent heart attacks, comparing the effects of aspirin to the much greater psi effect. So, I guess you all believe in telepathy. Martinphi 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last sentence of Intro

I restored the last sentence of the intro to

Despite the willingness to believe in the phenomenon, it has never been demonstrated in a rigorous scientific experiment (see Scientific Investigation below).

My reasons are carefully considered and are as follows:

  1. Provide NPOV. Telepathy is fictional, but the fact that some people believe in it is a real cultural phenomenon that needs to be covered to present "both sides".
  2. The issues of why some experimenters claim positive results is a major issue in itself, and can't be glossed over with one sentence. It deserves its own section, and has one. Content that should go there (including the ref to E.B. if deemed suitable) goes there. The brief intro points to it. This issue (as opposed to all the other information in the article) needs to be in the intro because of the controversial nature. But don't try and explain the controversy with one sentence.

Improving that section is another story.

—Długosz 01:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously trying to push a point of view. This will not succeed on Wikipedia. My revision was in accordance with the source cited, which is a production of a couple of the primary scientists in the field. It may have been POV in the context though. However, we can come to a compromise which does not push the reader either way. Let me be very clear: This article must remain NPOV. Your view that "telepathy does not exist" will not be made clear in the summary. It has its own section down the page.
Within the field of parapsychology there is really no debate on whether telepathy exists. Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this. Thus, there is really no reason that the articles dealing with subjects studied in parapsychology need to genuflect to skeptics even if the skeptics are correct. Of course, skepticism should be covered, as a matter of thoroughness. In fact, because there is so much controversy (mostly between people outside the field with people inside it), it should be given more coverage in parapsychological topics. But the skeptics need not be given equal time, nor does skepticism need to be part of the definition.
Let me reiterate that your POV editing is inappropriate on this site.
However, you are right that the summary here is too brief to cover such issues. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see. But, it should be made clear to a casual reader that it is being presented from the worldview of parapsychologists (which is important in this case because it differs from mainstream science) without having to be an expert in the nuances of Wikipedia.
For comparison, the article on Vulcan begins with the phrase, in Roman mythology and then is written (mostly) as-fact. In another article on Vulcan, it begins In the fictional Star Trek universe and continues with prose as-fact. Now we expect the reader to know that mythology (all mythologies other than his own religion anyway) is fiction. But the word fictional is inserted, as a hedge/redundancy, so people don't have to realize that the Star Trek Universe is not the world we live in.
Our article under discussion contains In the field of parapsychology in the middle of the first paragraph, not first. At the very least, I suggest putting a paragraph break there, and reversing the paras, putting the word origin after the overall summary of its meaning. Now people have to know or dig into the issue that parapsychology is real enough to them but at odds with physics and suffers from a credibility problem due to the large amount of pseudo- and junk- science and all the fraud TV acts that pretend to use telepathy and may or may not keep up the pretense off stage. So, some redundant weaseling is appropriate here, just as with Star Trek, I think.
Now, the issue of what is scientifically accepted within the field. How are the references vetted against pseudos (which are not doing science)? Worse yet, what about junk science which is harder to detect and contaminates the knowledge base?
That there is a distinction between the mentalist act and what parapsychologists study is something that would be part of the overall structure of the article.
I hope you find this discussion constructive. I'll hold off making edits until further discussion. —Długosz 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


WP:NPOV should be strictly followed and edit wars should be avoided. Repeated reverting accomplishes nothing but escalation and eventual blocking for WP:3RR. There's plenty of information missing from the article (info on theories, telepathists, etc.) that could be focused on instead of one disputed sentence in the introduction. -THB 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Yes, that's constructive, Długosz. What wasn't constructive was trying to tell the reader what to think.

"But, it should be made clear to a casual reader that it is being presented from the worldview of parapsychologists"

Agreed.

I don't think it is quite accurate to be comparing telepathy to something which is nearly universally agreed upon to be fictional, given that most scientists believe in ESP.

"Now, the issue of what is scientifically accepted within the field. How are the references vetted against pseudos"

I don't think you can vet against pseudo-parapsychology except by looking at whether the sources are published in a peer-reviewed journal like the Journal of Parapsychology (and not in, say, a skeptical source). And by looking at the credentials of the authors. But you can vet.

"That there is a distinction between the mentalist act and what parapsychologists study is something that would be part of the overall structure of the article."

Agreed.

See the current change, I'm putting "parapsychology" in the first sentence.

Please put your responses after other people's, or people might not see it. You had your response above my signature before I changed it.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, in order to present a NPOV on this article, I believe that the article much be written in a netural tone, what is it? What does the word mean? then, discuss why or why not it is believed to exist.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This is a terribly pushy article. It is written supposing that telepathy is a proven scientific fact. There is no peer reviewed scientific evidence that telepathy exists. I've made a simple edit to make this clear.

The article itself needs some drastic improvement. I suggest as follows:

  • The intro needs to make it clear that telepathy is not a fact. By failing to do this the introduction does not reflect the subject. By using a defintion, the article pushes the PoV that telepathy does or should exixt and is a real measureable and verifyable phenomenon. It is not.
  • Types of telepathy needs clarifying that this is the opinion or belief of those who think telepathy exists.
  • The scientific field which studies psi phenomena such as telepathy is called parapsychology. This is untrue. It is not a scientific field of study.
  • The scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology... pushing PoV. See above. Also, notice that it pushes aside the consensus of the scientific community at large including peer reviewed studies.
  • A number of weasle words here - most, some, "classical" (in inverted commas giving it an odd emphasis), no conclusive evidence (implying that eventually it will be supplied whereas in reality there is no scientific evidence conclusive or otherwise), perhaps (Original Research) and many.
  • The use of assertion and refudiation by "skeptics" turns the emphasis on the wrong foot. As there is no scientific evidence, the clear statement should be that it is not a fact and that supporters have theories which are not supported scientifically."This lack of reliable reproducibility has led skeptics to argue that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of telepathy at all." Well this says it all but the implication in the way it is written is that science has to disprove the "fact" of telepathy. It is the opposite. It is incredibly pushy PoV to claim that something exists, without evidence, and that science has to disprove this (constant referal to skeptics). You can't make something up and then ask science to disprove it.

Candy 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good essay and good luck in getting most uncritical non-scientists to understand your points (not POV). The last 2 sentences hit the nail on the head but that simple logic is hard for most to understand, unfortunately. This article should expalin what the concept of telepathy is and then another sentence that it doesn't exist. And maybe a section on sci-fi books annd movies that employ it. Sammyj 04:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Martinphi and other editors are pushing their PoV that telepathy is real and that parapsychology is a field of science. Both are entirely untrue, and this article is not only useless but greatly misleading. Unfortunately a subject such as this is going to attract woo-woos with a vested interest in pushing their PoV and not remaining neutral, so I fear that there is little that can be done to save this article, and Wikipedia.

The most amusing part of this article is "There is a consensus within that field that some instances of telepathy are real" backed up by two citations from - you guessed it - the Parapsychological Association. Good one. JammyB 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So go ahead and take a shot at fixing it. --Minderbinder 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"There is a consensus within that field that some instances of telepathy are real" Except that this is 100% true, there IS consensus within parapsychology that that some instances are real. This is an indisputable fact. Of course they believe that it is real, they're believers. It's like saying "within the Republican party there is consensus that a republican president is a good thing". - perfectblue 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a POV-check tag. Main reason is that a consensus doesn't seem to have been reached here regarding neutrality. Personally I don't think the article is too bad regarding neutrality, but it's certainly not perfect. I would recommend:
(also, I changed the title of the section "future of telepathy")
In a possibly unrelated note, the lack of a section with proposed explanations (physical and biological) for how telepathy is supposed to happen is currently a huge hole in the article. AoS1014 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of the paranormal

James Randi's 1982 book is cited as a source for a criticism of Dean Radin's assessment of meta-analysis of telepathy experiments. The criticism says: "Detractors counter that Radin is too accepting of studies as "reputable". This is proof of the paranormal because Radin's assessment took place 20 years after Randi's book was written (many of the experiments took place after Randi's book was written). To make the specific criticism attributed to him then, Randi must have precognitive powers.Davkal 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The section on research has also now been changed to suggest that only supporters of the paranormal claim the telepathy experiments have yielded positive results. No one disputes this. The reasons for the positive results are perhaps disputed but even Ray Hyman (in his joint statement with Charles Honorton) said: "we agree that the overall significance observed in these studies cannot reasonably be explained by these selective factors [i.e., "multiple testing, retrospective experiments, ... the file-drawer problem," etc." There is therefore no debate that significant (positive) results have been obtained and very little appeal (anymore) to experimental flaws etc. As Radin put it, people who maintain there is no scientific evidence for telepathy and that sceptics have explained the results as flawed experiments etc., are not only uninformed about the current state of parapsychology, they are uninformed about the current state of scpeticism. Davkal 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see sources in the article backing this up. Do you have a link on the Hyman statement? Are there articles in mainstream scientific publications discussing the acceptance of positive results in telepathy studies? I don't see them, if they exist they would be a good addition to the article. --Minderbinder 12:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Milo, you would do well to consider this as a sub-article of Parapsychology, because that is really what it is. So, look at the sources there. Of course, we have them. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have sources that specifically mention telepathy, I'd recommend adding them to this article. --Minderbinder 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


I see Randi's precognitive criticism of Radin has been reinserted. Anyone like to explain how such a thing is possible. Davkal 10:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telepathy in fiction

I have reported this earlier that telepathy is also used in the anime 'Ghost In The Shell'. Plz. some one add it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 21st CenturyDRAGON (talk • contribs) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I added the Carpathians to the example of telepaths in fiction. Jahunta07 09:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The illustrations

I think that the illustrations especially the last one are not pre-empted within the article. There's alot of interesting things going on in those illustrations that need to be talked about.Lighthead 02:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five senses!?

This needs some major change. The phrase, "using the usual five senses" is ill-defined and extremely un-scientific. It implies that the oft and incorrect use of the concept of people having 5 senses (which is a hangover of poor teaching from the early and middle parts of the last century) is in fact correct. There are at least 3 further senses and if actually broken down to individual (rather than grouped senses) could easily be counted as more than 20.

Ergo, if anyone still believes we only have 5 senses then I am certain I have extra-sensory perception as I have many more. This sentence needs changing. Candy 10:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed this by linking "five classical senses" to the wikipedia article which describes in more detail what you refer to. If you can find a better way of phrasing this, please give it a go. --Otheus 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedited

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in April 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Otheus 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I changed references, parallelism, and removed some extra verbiage. Here is the most useful diff of my copyedits. The subsequent version restored spacing and broke up consecutive references in order to enhance editability.diff. --Otheus 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topic

Could users please try to remember that the first few lines of the introduction should define the term being used, not the phenomona being discussed.

perfectblue 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Telepathy, Time Continuum, Sensory Stimulus of the Brain, Milkway Galaxy Blackhole

You know there are a lot of parapsychology researchers, using sensory deprivation to try to communicate with telepathy at a distance. The time continuum in which the human brain generates telepathic signals or images from the point of creation into the past and future is sort of a secondary accumlative sense. The brain kind of keeps track of whats going on in the present tense. The use of red lights, music, eye covers, on a agent in a closed quiet room to create sensory deprivation may affect the time continuum. But it seems all of these methods do not recoginize that there is a ESP time continuum. The parapsychology researcher has made an effort to indefinitely extend the brains processing of a time contiuum with a deprivation enviornment. Telepathy may not exist with out the help of stimulus like a short bell or tone, possibly the flash of bright silver light allowing the brain to use the accumulated outside transmission of thought after a few minutes. The idea of telepathy, senory stimulus response of the human brain, and the time continuum is abstract.

Have you seen the radio astronomy pictures, and infared pictures of the activity around the Milkway Galaxies Blackhole, including the massive turberlance affecting the surrounding planets. This could affect the human mind and its ESP. These energy and electromagnetic fields create symbolism and archetypes in the brain among groups of people. It appears that the symbols and words we use to unite poeple could be the result of constant patterns of energy from outerspace. While the Milkway Blackhole appears much to far to influence the human mind and nature on earth, other outerspace energy sources could influence the collective mind of man (look for words,symbols, structures, archetypes that appear to represent the events surrounding a blackhole in outerspace, circling or speeding planet patterns).

Please note that the picture of the person in the deprivation room could be a unconscious act to contact the Milkway Galaxy Blackhole and its surrounding planetary activity at the center of the Milkway Galaxy. The metaphysics of black magic, the pentagram may possibly trace as a symbol the activity of speeding planets around the blackhole. This also includes Zener Cards. For parapsychologists and traditional religion, astrology is a known idea.

I have come up with a Theorem about ESP and the Milkway Galaxy Blackhole. The Theorem says that the english language or english words reflect the tremendous planetary activity at the center of the Milkway Galaxy, where a Blackhole is located. The spelling of english words reflect some kind of mechanical or organic physics relating to the electromagnetic and spiritual influence from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. For example the words for God, Guide, and Gravitational when read from a certain direction could reflect the speeding planetary activity around the Blackhole. It is assumed the letter g represents the Spirial Milkway Galaxy,the letters b, d could be planets pulled into the area around the blackhole. Well the letters o,and e may represent the blackhole. It could take a physicist to decode the letters, words and symbols that occur in the time continuum.

KNeuroleptic1 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to rename "Notes" section "Cited references"

I feel the "Notes" section should be renamed "Cited references" and the "References" section should be renamed "General references." Or else go back in the History and find out what those nonspecific references refer to; maybe they can be deleted and just have a sole "References" section. A Note is an additional explanatory comment by an author. I don't see any Notes here. These are all cited sources. I'm the main author of the Psychokinesis article, which I've heavily referenced. I'm not a regular editor here at Telepathy, so I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I just want to throw this suggestion to the regulars in case it seems like a good idea. Thanks. 5Q5 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Good- be bold, this article isn't that great anyway. Did some of what you suggest. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Reference?

This sentence-

"An early example of something like telepathy is found in 2 Kings 6, where Elisha is able to tell the king of Israel the Aramean battle plans without physically hearing them."

Is not only questionable, (the verse, within context, gives no explanation for how Elisha knows what he knows, and especially does not give any credence to telepathy within further context), but is clumsy, poorly placed, and somewhat "trivia-ish", and thus useless. I move for erasing it? Lackinglatin 11:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removed controversy in lead

Removed the controversy in the lead to the talk page, pending consensus on where to put it.

The existence of telepathic abilities is highly controversial. No evidence for telepathy has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community. Skeptics say that all seeming telepathic abilities are the result of self-delusion or fraud.[1]

I believe WP:LEAD says that the lead should generally reflect the article. I think in this instance, that the lead should reflect the article structure as well, rather than what some editors think is more important. The article should be more pop culture, because science pages are already in place, and such pages do not do well in covering the general cultural scene. This is the general consensus on other articles of a similar nature, such as Psychic. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about WP:LEAD, but two or three sentences giving the necessary caveats at the beginning of the article seems very much in order, and are to me much more important than fiction or transhumanism. Michaelbusch 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you are right that it is a lot more important, and also that we do need the caveats. But I'd like to get this article focused on pop culture, and then cover the scientific stuff in other articles like Ganzfeld and Psychokinesis. Of course we need the caveats, I just want to keep parapsychology at the end of the article, and only a small section. And since the criticism has to come after parapsychology (cause no one criticizes pop culture), then the order in the lead would naturally be Definition --> fiction & pop culture --> parapsychology and criticism. The only problem with this is that NPOV tells us to seperate parapsychology and criticism, because otherwise we are juxtaposing in a way that makes it seem POV. If we put it in a way that gives the information but doesn't hit things hard like this:
Parapsychology explores the possibility that telepathy may be real, and telepathy, along with telekinesis form the main branches of Parapsychological research. No evidence for telepathy has gained wide acceptance in the mainstream scientific community, and skeptics say that all seeming telepathic abilities are the result of self-delusion or fraud.[2]

Then we could have only two paragraphs, and have the above be part of the first paragraph. How would that be? Excuse me if I'm not making sense, I had wine for dinner. I do prefer to have the criticism in the last paragraph of the lead, as is standard with these kinds of articles. I'd compromise on the above. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)