Talk:Controversy in parapsychology

Frankly, this page scares me

This reads more like a blog or discussion page than a proper encyclopedic entry. The use of the "one crit. one rebuttal" format is potentially misleading, and the tendency on this page to make blanket generalizations about what one or the other side believes is dangerously close to the kind of straw-man arguments commonly used by TV pundits. I would recommend deletion, because the topic of the page is presented in a non-Wikipedian way (Wikipedia is not a blog, or a site to respond to criticism). Noclevername 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Scares you??? There is a real need for an overview of the criticisms and responses between parapsychology and its critics. The format isn't quite as simple as it seems. Criticisms which have no response -or which no one has formulated a response to- can be placed under the heading "Other criticisms". This is not really an article unto itself, but a sub-section of the main article. There is a huge need for this format, because if you put the criticism and response in separate sections, it is very difficult to evaluate whether the response really is adequate to the criticism- or even to follow the argument at all. I couldn't, when they were separate. I also believe that most of the criticisms are sourced or could be, and many have quotes, and nearly all the responses are sourced. So it isn't really that generalized. It is only split from the main page due to size. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

All that is true, but beside the point. The need for a page like this may exist, but not in an encyclopedia. This page is a collection of arguments, and I believe it violates the spirit of Wikipedia. That's what scares me; not the subject matter, but the entire format and concept of the page. WP is not the proper setting for settling debates. Noclevername 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"This page is a collection of arguments":

Don't you think it is appropriate to describe debates in Wikipedia? That is a lot of what it actually does. And debates are composed of pro and con arguments. There are different formats for portraying debates, and in some cases it is fine to have them in different sections (as with all the other paranormal pages). But I believe that in this particular case, the thinking reader would be best informed by comparing the criticisms directly with the responses. This is the least confusing way of doing it in an extremely confusing debate. The reader who hasn't studied parapsychology simply cannot grasp the field without some sort of point-by-point comparison. Anyway, the critics could "win" on this page, so it isn't a defense of parapsychology. All we need is a really good critic. What would happen if Hyman himself took an interest in this page?

"WP is not the proper setting for settling debates.":

Yes, that's true, but there are various ways of describing controversy, and one of them is to compare directly, point for point. When you do that, you aren't trying to settle a debate, you are just reporting that "so-and-so says this, and the other so-and-so says this back." You can have it in different sections, or look at the points one-for-one.

Also, this page does not settle debates. It has a section for unanswered criticisms. Also, some of the responses essentially agree with the criticisms, such as about the abuse of quantum physics, The psi assumption, and that The paranormal is culturally very popular and profitable. So it isn't as if "the parapsychologists have an answer for everything."

Yeah, I know it's an unusual format. But I think the subject and milieu within which parapsychology lies require it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not certain I'd agree that Wikipedia is a place to describe debates about controversial subjects, at least not in such elaborate detail. The main Parapsychology page does a good job of summing up the general state of the debate, with a few well-chosen examples; to fill a page with them seems excessive. I agree that too much detail is better than too little, but there are limits (see What Wikipedia is not for guidelines). Is this page encyclopedic? According to the definition as I understand it, no. Noclevername 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"at least not in such elaborate detail."

Parapsychological topics have about 20 or 30 pages on Wikipedia. So the objections which cover them in general need to be in one article, not spread around in each.

I just don't know what you mean about encyclopedic. Could you point me to the definition you mean? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Critics could "win" on this page, so it isn't a defense of parapsychology" -- ?? If a format lends itself to one or another side possibly winning, then it's the wrong format. I stumbled across this article expecting to find find out what both sides believed. Instead I found an article that appears to attempt to "clear up common misconceptions about parapsychology". Not that such an article is a bad thing. Just that it more rightly belongs on a private website. -- LuckyLouie 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be correct. But, two things: first, no one's winning or losing. That's why I put scare quotes around "'win'". If the page "clears up common misconceptions about parapsychology" then that is just what it's for. It is to clear up any ignorance or misconceptions the reader may have about the debate.

"If a format lends itself to one or another side possibly winning, then it's the wrong format."

Of course. I said "Anyway, the critics could 'win'" because I though it was the impression that this was a defense of parapsychology. It is not. If there are unanswered, or poorly answered criticisms, they must be included. There isn't censorship in favor of either side. There's a section for unanswered criticisms, and there were some for a while.

"I stumbled across this article expecting to find find out what both sides believed. Instead I found an article that appears to attempt to "clear up common misconceptions about parapsychology"."

The page is indeed meant to explicate what both sides believe about the other, NPOV. The format is debate. If you found that there are not unanswered or poorly answered criticisms, perhaps that means something also (and I assume here that the objection would be that there must be some criticisms which are unanswerable). This is also valuable information. Either the skeptics on here are lazy, or parapsychology has a good defense. Either way, the reader is informed. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It seems to me this is a question of format, not content. There haven't been questions of NPOV, or censorship. Is there anything against a pro/con format in the Wikipedia rules? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. LuckyLouie, I respectfully propose that if you din't find out something of what both sides think about contentious issues, you didn't read the page. This isn't a page meant to deeply evaluate issues, but to cover common criticisms and responses. Perhaps the title needs to be changed to reflect that: "Common criticisms and responses in parapsychology". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

The statement "Either the skeptics on here are lazy, or parapsychology has a good defense" is both entirely non-NPOV and factually inaccurate; The article contains only carefully selected statements which do not fully or objectively present the views of either side. That is the main problem with this type of format; the tendency to fall into a competetive pattern with the advantage going to whomever has the last word. It is not a scientific approach, relying more on anecdotal statements than on hard data. Noclevername 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Either the Skeptics on here are lazy, or parapsychology has a good defense" is not only a very Non-NPOV statement, it is also totally inaccurate.

Talk pages don't require NPOV.

The statements on this page are a selectively chosen few of the many professed viewpoints and sources of evidence (both biased and Un-),

Such selection is part of what we do on Wikipedia, in accordance with WP:V etc.

and therefore does not give a full and impartial view of the topic.

Fine. Edit away.

The article does not therefore fit the Wikipedia criteria for NPOV.

Great. Prove it and NPOV it.

Incompleteness is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason for improvement. This is the first substantiative reason for deletion I've seen. But it doesn't work. It seems to me this is a question of format, not content. Is there anything against a pro/con format in the Wikipedia rules?

LuckyLouie, I respectfully propose that if you didn't find out something of what both sides think about contentious issues, you didn't read the page. This isn't a page meant to deeply evaluate issues, but to cover common criticisms and responses. Perhaps the title needs to be changed to reflect that: "Common criticisms and responses in parapsychology".Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good topic, bad format

I do believe that there is a place on wikipedia for an article that discusses the issue of the types of criticisms directed towards parapsychology, the intensely personal nature of that criticism and it's relation to certain belief systems such as Skepticism, Atheism etc. As an anthropologist, I am often disturbed by the exchanges I see in the literature and in skeptical publications which I read. It is clear that for some skeptics, no amount of scientific testing or experimentation will ever be enough and what research is done is eagerly greeted as an opportunity to impune the motives of the parapsychologist doing it, their scientific training, their methods etc ad infinitum. I have seen my fair share of savage attacks on academics by colleagues but with topics that fall under parapsychology, the overwhelming majority of criticism comes not from peers or colleagues but from a group of scholars whose criticism seems to be motivated by more than just scientific interest. There are sketpics and then there are activist skeptics who treat any research in these areas as a personal affront. I personally see it as no different than a biblical archeologist attacking any findings that might suggest there was never a global deluge as described in the Noah story. The difference being that to certain skeptics, anything that clashes with their belief in a non-theistic world or rational and explainable world is intolerable.

So, I say good topic, but bad format. The whole tit for tat style is tedious and incomprehensible to the average reader. I would encourage the original editor to rethink his/her approach to this and look for good sources that evaluate the tone of skeptical criticism towards such topics and consider whether their tone is any different than the one they use to attck the validity of religious topics. Of course, he/she might also want to look at source material that seeks to determine if there IS any discernable difference between Parapsychology and religion. Some argue there isn't much of a difference. Look at Carl Sagan's Demon haunted World and Mike Dash's Boderlands. There's good material there. Lisapollison 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pro & Con format

Ah, that's where it is! Someone on the Deletion discussion page found the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Pro & con lists. I knew it was out there somewhere, just couldn't remember where... Absentmindedly yours, Noclevername 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this article and the discussion on the talk page and AFD page reminded me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arguments for and against the single european currency?, which is where I'd seen that guideline. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my dropped ball, ONUnicorn. And may I add, d'oh! Noclevername

The Question Is...

Ultimately, can this page be salvaged? In order to make it properly Wikipedic, it would require a total rewrite; The format and even the name would need changing. Better to scrap it and start fresh from the ground up, or just let the main Parapsychology page sum up the matter of common criticsms, etc. Noclevername 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be salvaged. Like I said in my comment at AFD, there's lots of good, useable content here in the form of sources and quotations, and it's clear that a lot of work went into this and it'd be a shame to scrap it all. However, it does need to be totally re-written. Martinphi seems accepting of a move to userspace and a re-write; see this comment on my talk page], but doesn't think he (she?) can or should do the re-write, but is willing to host it in his userspace. I think merging it all into Parapsychology would be a mistake - summary style exists for a reason. Should we go ahead and move it now, withdrawing the AFD in the process, or should we wait for the AFD to run its course? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; The contents of this page could be moved to Martinphi's Userspace, and in its place, a comprehensive rewrite of the article, with a link to Martinphi on the Parapsychology Category page. That way, all the work that went into this particular page won't be lost, the info here will still be available, and this page gets a fresh start. Sounds like a plan! Noclevername 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideas to improve the page

I think the arguments against parapsychology need to be divided up along lines of

• Rabid scientism orPseudoskepticism-- arguments against research --I'm sure that most criticisms come from these people, but I don't know if you could find a source that says so.
• Arguments against the evidence
• Arguments against methods --which can give evidence of the good methods used in some research as well as the bad methods used by some researchers.
• Some mention of amatuer researchers
• Legitimate questions (ie. Occam's razor, confirmation bias)
• The general scientific opinion--Why, despite all the criticisims, Parapsychology is considered a valid field of study regardless of whether ESP is true or not

I also think a historical section would be fun to write, but it might fit better in the main article. Puddytang 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks good... also

• Objections about the misuse of physics
• About the lack of theories

Not all the legitimate crits are already in the article. Some from Hyman need inclusion. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Pseudoskeptics arguements should be the least emphasized things here, if even mentioned at all; I'd much rather see statements from solid scientific sources than a page of angry Penn and Teller quotes! -- Noclevername 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So we'll go with peer reviewed journals, and how about Truzzi, one of the founders of CSICOP, who popularized the term? Would they do for a discussion of pseudoskeptics? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor move

For anyone who wants to tell me tha moving a page is not a minor edit- I must have checked the box by accident. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stragely enough, I've found that the software automatically marks all moves with the m, just like minor edits. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed Cheerleading

I took out the bit about skeptics using skeptical commentaries since it was written by a believer using a believer's commentary. Additionally, it added nothing to the argument other than beg for sympathy.

The second part I took out because it was stating the obvious. Also it claimed that skeptics and pro-psi proponents said this, but then gave only a pro-psi source.

Also I took out the bit about precognition since it seemed like a non-sequitor. One minute we're talking about whether or not there is a psi presumption, then we read a quote from Radin saying that "the experiments prove it" and by the way have you seen these results about precognition?

Well, I shouldn't revert, perhaps, because I'm not sure what is going on in this article now. When I wrote it, it made sense, but maybe it doesn't anymore. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is going on with article, it can't stand the way it is presently. Adding litle responses to the end of each criticism isn't NPOV. It simply makes it look like all the arguments have been successfully rebutted by the paprapsychological community, which they haven't. Radin's dig about "armchair scientists" has no place in this article. Ersby 05:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and have a whack at it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that you deleted a pro-sci section because it didn't have a corresponding anti-psi section. As per Wiki-norm, deletion should only be used as a last resort or in the case of a factual error. As an editor, it's our duty to balance out arguments by adding to the weaker side, not by deleting the stronger (larger) side. Deleting one side of the argument because there isn't another side (yet) leaves us open to claims that we are trying to conceal the fact that there is an argument.

perfectblue 11:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the quotes "answering" the criticisms was that they seemed to have little to do with the argument itself. For example, the "presumption of psi" article used to run as (1) people have argued it is wrong to ascribe curious results to telepathy, (2) but this lab got curious results, (3) and look at these papers here - they seem to prove presentience. Numbers 2 and 3 don't seem to answer point 1, and are just there to... well, I'm not sure why they're there. Similarly, that quote "Selective and historically uninformed "armchair cheerleading" and "armchair skepticism" are equally useless in all fields of inquiry and science" was deleted by me since it was just stating the obvious at best and finger-wagging at worst. Ersby 20:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's weird. I could've sworn I deleted that bit. Must be getting old... Ersby 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Restoration - ideally, temporary

I've restored this article because the newly rewritten parapsychology article only addresses some of the weaker controversies and criticisms. Ideally, the most important criticisms will be merged with the new parapsychology article and this article can become just a redirect again. I'll be working on making that happen. Oh, and I threw up an NPOV tag because I'm not certain that the wording of this entire article is fair; however, some of the contents are important toward a fuller understanding of parapsychology. Antelan ^talk 06:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I agree with the above to merge with Parapsychology. I have edited toward that goal, removing quotes, and generally keeping the main points -all but a couple which were not common or needed-, but eliminating unnecessary text. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you "pare down" an article for a merge only after consensus on merging has been achieved, not before. Second, this article is not small enough (even without the quotations) per WP:SIZE to be merged on purely size grounds. It is simply too large to include in the main parapsychology article, and having a "Criticisms" or "Controversy" article is far and away the most common content fork that happens in a topic. The main article gives the proper summary section of the topic, so it's not an NPOV violation. You seem to give no reasons for a merge, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on why policy supports a merge. VanTucky 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as important, when editors are changing or re-introducing content in the article, please leave a proper edit summary, and discuss it on the talk page afterwards (preferably before). Personally I can't see how this article will sit comfortably on any other article. If you are going to use such a broad descriptive title, without being accused of POV violations by not including everything controversial, then I can't see how you can get it any smaller. But please remember that it tagged at the moment, so any drastic changes might be changed by a vandalbot if you don't leave edit summaries. Mike33 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, but I think it should be more like a redirect. See relevant discussion here [1].

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

3RRRrrrrrrrrrrrr

WP:3R is to stop edit wars. Its about talking. Not editing mainspace every few hours with wipe out sprees. Editors who oppose a merger do not do themselves favours by disrupting mainspace. Most other editor would consider it disriptive and trying to push a POV. The idea behind mergers is to cut repeated ideas. Warring to create a perfect article is not the best idea when it is tagged. A tag was removed today and a merge proposed that was just plain silly - a reference piece was cut and a again large portions of an unwiki way of presentation was replaced.

Take this back to Afd. If you continue warring, I can only see one loser here.

Discuss in Talk, present reasoned arguments (and not schpeil from other talk pages) and then take it to Afd. Warring only makes wikipedia bad and it doesn't help anyone who comes here to learn. Mike33 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your comments about edit warring and 3RR apply to all, but I'm not sure where you stand on the content Mike? Are you saying that you're in favor of the deletions by Martin (because they certainly aren't duplicate info)? VanTucky 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've explored some of the history of this article's status on your talk page, VanTucky. Martinphi, the Edit Summary is for summarizing edits, not for discussion; the talk page is designed to serve that role. Cheers. Antelan ^talk 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My basic position is this: I reverted all the deletions because Martinphi refused to discuss them at all here, and I will not stand for large deletions of unique sourced material without any discussion. Once more, what was the point of hacking away at the article if a merge discussion was still underway anyhow? Shouldn't we be able to argue a merge without someone ripping apart sourced content? VanTucky 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I started editing the article, with consensus from everyone involved that it should eventually be merged to parapsychology. Then VanTucky comes along and starts edit warring. There was no "ongoing discussion" before he came along and started being highly disruptive. The first I've ever seen of him, is when he started reverting in the middle of my editing of the page. I mean, if Nealparr calls someone a WP:DICK, you know something's wrong. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, the WP:DICK was for VanTucky's general tone. I think we've both WP:CHILLed since then. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree talk is about everything. Comment summaries have been left blank or complete discussions of text. Tags have been removed. a merge to Parapsychology was changed to another site under threat of merger. None of this was done with out a wink or a nod.

Please there are sensible editors who can read the changes that have been made again and again and again over the past three weeks. Its disruptive. All editors involved should take it to Afd I think. I have absolutely nothing against the quotes but think they are presented in a way to POV, not intentionally I presume, but very few pages would get away with boxing quotes.

If you call me to Afd, I will remain neutral. Mike33 23:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all Martin, it is patent falsehood to say that consensus on your edits was achieved before I came along. I am not the only one to revert you in these deletions consistently. Second, it is not a crime to disagree with someone, and I resent the allusion that I am some troll who came along and destroyed your lovely two-user consensus. It is my right, and the right of every user, to comment on anything on Wikipedia. And I just want to confirm here...are you calling me a dick? Because Nealparr and I have since reconciled our personal differences, if not our editorial ones.VanTucky 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What is most abnormal about this article is that a concern is raised, and then the parapsychological viewpoint gets the "last word". This is not traditional on WP. Because the criticism section on the parapsychology article is laughably weak, though, this page should be cleaned up and maintained. I would theoretically support an eventual merger into parapsychology, but the two articles are both large enough that such a merger would be unwieldy. There is no reason this article can't be tweaked to become NPOV. Antelan ^talk 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge is bad, the main Para article is already very long. Redirecting is unreasonable. This one should be NPOVd essentially as described by Antelan. JoshuaZ 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike 33, perhaps I came to it in the middle of a fight- I only started a day or two ago, not weeks. And I had consensus with the only people I knew, that is, with Antelan; I was also correct in thinking that others would agree (see parapsychology talk page).

Actually, VanTucky, you are the only one to revert my edits. At least the only one I see in the history.

Antelan, if you have any way of presenting besides one POV and then another- do it. Since there are two opposing POVs, and since we can't say which is correct- I don't know any other way. I think there is no reason this can't be merged to the main article, per your suggestion when you undid the redirect. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Parapsychology article is not "very long" as is indicated by JoshZ. The entire article is only 43kb long, with everything included in with the readable prose - so it's probably a bit smaller if we take out the items that don't count. According to Article size, this limit can go higher than that, to at least 50 to 60kb in size. And Controversy in parapsychology is very short, leading to the following calculations:

parapsychology: Less than 4500 words Controversy: Less than 1100 words Total of complete merge: slightly less than 5600 words Which is below limits set according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_size#Readability_issues Limit of readability between 6000 to 10000 words

In short, there is absolutely no reason not to merge this article. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It will add up to 58KB, just so everyone knows. VanTucky 00:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, my comments were before the entirely rewritten parapsychology article was rolled out. It is not fair to say that I agreed that these two articles be merged; I only agreed that this article be merged with the previous version of the parapsychology article. Antelan ^talk 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You said "Ideally, the most important criticisms will be merged with the new parapsychology article and this article can become just a redirect again" at the time you removed the redirect from this article, which was after the other article came online. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin, don't tell other people what they do and do not support. VanTucky 01:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm saying you are acting like a WP:DICK. Stop it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge: What's here that's not there?

There's been arguments over something here that isn't over there and that redirecting this article removes something noteworthy. I agree with the "Ideally, the most important criticisms will be merged with the new parapsychology article and this article can become just a redirect again", but my point is that:

• "General context" section here doesn't add anything new.
• "Reliability of evidence" here is better covered by the current "Controversy over experimental results". If necessary, the anecdotal evidence stuff can be included. That would take a whole sentence maybe.
• "Replication" here is already covered in "Controversy over scientific status" there.
• "Statistical significance" here is covered in "Controversy over experimental results" there.
• "Presumption of psi" here is covered by the many places where it explains that interpretations are subjective. If it has to say "psi assumption", that can take a single sentence.
• "Gambling" here is a non-notable criticism, kind of stupid actually.
• "Conflict with known science" here is covered all over the place there.
• "Interdisciplinary field" here is just a variation on "conflict with known science". In other words, the fact that other fields don't accept it doesn't add anything new. That is covered very well over there. If it has to say these words, again one sentence to two sentences, tops.
• "Pseudoscience" here is covered in many places there. It is specifically covered in "Controversy over scientific status", but also in the general theme of the entire article, which is basically covering parapsychology's epistemological status.

So again, what is there here that already isn't over there? Much ado about nothing if you ask me. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What's a good cutoff?

Alright, after pouring through all of the related histories and discussions, the original un-redirected version of this article, located here [2], does contain more criticism than what is already in the current parapsychology article. I don't personally feel they are important criticisms, but there are more. A lot of things have been thrown around, but the discussion as related to a merger boils down to whether or not this "other" information is important, whether it is too large for the actual parapsychology article, and whether or not this other article is neutral. I agree that the full article is much too large to simply copy over. Further, this would put the actual parapsychology article back to a state where it was an unencyclopedic, hard to read, orgy of informaion. Many editors here weren't around for that, but it was seen by all involved to be a bad thing. That's the reason for the summarized state it is in now. Summarized, while not covering everything under the sun about parapsychology, simply read better.

The current parapsychology article does read better as a summarized article, ie. not exhaustive. I don't personally feel there is anything important going on in the [3] version that isn't covered over there, but there is definitely more. The question is, do we want more? Most editors (judging by the lack of activity on the current parapsychology article) generally see it as neutrally written. Most of the content of this article is criticism. Does the actual parapsychology article need more criticism? Doesn't it already pretty much come down on parapsychology to an appropriate degree already? Would adding more indepth criticism (versus the already summarized criticism that covers the basic points) actually improve the article?

Now, if not merged over, if kept here intact, what can be done to neutralize this article? This isn't a controvery in parapsychology article. It's a criticism plus response, point-counter point. If that were changed to simply criticism, sans counter-point, it wouldn't be neutral. If it were all counter point, it wouldn't be neutral. If it were actually written to be an actual analysis of the controversy, it would probably read much like the actual parapsychology article, where you present what parapsychology is, its history, and then criticism over it. That's a controversy in parapsychology article.

Again, after reading all of the discussions, it appears that the questions being asked are paraphrased as "is there enough discussion of the controversy in the actual parapsychology article, and is there enough criticism?" To this, I have to ask, how much discussion do you need, how much criticism does it take, and how much balancing information is needed so the article isn't all criticism?

Spin-offs are sometimes needed on Wikipedia to explore a topic further without bogging down the reader. I'd argue that this is not the case for parapsychology. Parapsychology is not a hot-topic, going concern, or however you want to word that. It's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and is historically interesting, but how many pages at Wikipedia does it really need to cover parapsychology? If we want to go indepth on the criticism, why not go indepth on the history? There's a lot left out when writing that in favor of just covering the notables. If we go indepth on the history and criticism, why not go indepth on the methodologies? There's a host of experiments left out, minor details, and so on. Now we might argue, yeah, go for it, spin off all these sections into full articles. Then I have to ask, again, how many pages does parapsychology need? There's whole books on the topic, but I don't think anyone really wants a "book of parapsychology" here at Wikipedia. I have a copy of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. That thing's almost 2000 pages.

The question I'm asking is here, or over at the actual parapsychology article, where is the cutoff? We can cover everything there is to cover about the topic, but do we really want to?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not active on this article because I can't make a change to an article on this topic without being reverted, even if all I'm doing is adding sources and changing sentence structure without adding or subtracting content. Don't assume that because others are not commenting, they believe this to be a neutral presentation of the subject. Silence is not consent. Antelan ^talk 03:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We've had long discussions on the talk page and you never mentioned anything like this before. There's no revertions on the talk page. Please feel free to elaborate. Despite the flare up, I'm still looking for a neutral stable article. LuckieLouie mentioned a specific thing below that needs to be in one of the two articles, file drawer. What are you looking for?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And what revert? You've only made three edits since the article was rewritten and none of them were reverted. In the one where you're now saying you didn't remove any content, you removed the part that said "scientific" because it was "weasel" [4]. No one reverted that edit. All I did was reword (not revert) to an unweaseled version that didn't remove anything [5]. I later retracted my edit after you changed your argument to it being unsourced. We had a big long talk about it and you never mentioned anything about being concerned about reverts.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxing

Regular editors can get the new "lock-down" lifted if you are going to create debate.

You all have sandbox features open to you. create a sandbox - edit the existing page (whether u want to keep it here or merge), it only a simple matter of adding your own preferences and combing with [Source]

• Open your sandbox by clickingTalk:Controversy in parapsychology/new/ and add your name after new/ in the address bar and enter
• new articles can't start a war!
• example sandbox is how the article stands now Talk:Controversy in parapsychology/new/example

• Please remember your sandbox only exists if you list it in talk! Mike33 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I already sandboxed the current version here, and people are welcome to edit it. But I agree with Nealparr: the controversy is already covered in the current article. We're not here to do details, but to summarize things. So let's merge per Antelan's original instinct, Wikidudeman, and others. I mean, there is a possibility of consensus between a lot of people here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I state that the assertion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; which by its very definition is meant to be detailed and comprehensive. Any mere summarization of the main points of criticism of Parapsychology is insufficient when detailed information already exists in this article. Glossing over or ignoring altogether a detailed (and as you said, comparatively small at 15 KB) analysis of criticisms of Parapsychology is a clear and direct violation of neutral, balanced coverage of the topic. If you want to merge all the content into the main article from here to make a length that is an exception to WP:SIZE, be my guest. But not under any circumstances will I condone a watering down of the already thin criticisms of Parapsychology you and the other apologists for this pseudoscience have constantly attacked and deleted. VanTucky 03:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

^Example of the general attitude I was talking about. "Apologists for this pseudoscience"?, WP:AGF. Some of us are just trying for good content.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong: the point of an encyclopedia is that it's a summary of knowledge. Please understand things before you come in being disruptive.Further, you are defending an article which I wrote. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I address the nature of an encyclopedia in the section above. Please let me know what you think. Like I said up there, if we cover every detail, we're looking at 2000 pages if someone wants to go that far. Where's the cutoff?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky is a fresh editor in this subject (just as I was not too long ago) and he sees some POV issues. Now, you can either chalk it up to some cabal, or you can consider his commentary. Remember, there are limits to AGF, and by the way you treat this newcomer to the topic, you can imagine that you're straining those limits in his mind. Consider his comments about the material. I think they're meritorious. Antelan ^talk 04:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Was the AGF comment for me? Cause I always do. It was VanTucky who came down on me over in the parapsychology talk page, completely unprovoked.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It was in response to Martinphi. The WP:OWN in his "you are defending an article that I wrote" really stuck a chord. --Antelan ^talk 13:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think people are concerned by the whimsical editing that went on recently. I know I am. As the example shows, the file drawer problem is declared "not a major criticism" and it gets cut. No discussion. Things like that make it hard to AGF. - LuckyLouie 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple fix, round those up, summarize them, and include them in the main article. Call it a day. At some point there needs to be a cutoff. Not on major points, but on wordiness, how many articles there are, details, and so on. Most editors are saying copy the important points over. I say start with the original restoration of this article, list the points, figure out what points are already in the main article, figure out which are important from the ones that are left, and drop them in there as well. This shouldn't be a huge deal, imho. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Added "file drawer" to the main parapsychology article, though it was sort of already there as "selective reporting".--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr and Martinphi's relativist arguments are really quite funny. First you say, this article is relatively small so let's merge it. Then when I agree the amount of criticisms are small (in both articles), so there is no need to chop them and destroy what little balanced coverage of the topic there is, you argue that we can't use up the "limited space" of the internet with endless criticisms, so that is why a merge is necessary. Make up your fucking minds already. This flip-flopping in argument is what lead me to believe that your goal isn't to cleanup redundancies or "wordiness", but to use whatever argument works best at the time to remove whatever criticisms of parapsychology you can. It's not a breach of AGF when evidence to the contrary of a user's good intentions presents itself. VanTucky 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop referring to "Nealparr and Martinphi" as if we were "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern". I often disagree with Martinphi and honestly have skipped over reading most of what he writes in these threads because I know they're probably about something other than what I'm talking about based on past experience. I have repeatedly asked anyone to go ahead and copy relevant points over and you repeatedly say I am trying to remove criticisms. That makes no sense whatsoever and makes me wonder if you're even reading anything before you post. No one, not you or anyone else besides me, have added one single criticism to the parapsychology article. I have asked repeatedly for editors to add what they feel is relevant. And still you attack me instead of contributing to the article.

This has irritated me since day one. Not necessarily you, but everyone. People sit back and criticize these articles, but they make no contribution. They say that it is weak on criticism but add none. The people who do make an effort to compromise, add neutrality, address these points, they get slammed. If you don't think it has enough criticism, add some friggin criticism already. If you think it needs every thought utterance ever made about parapsychology and every critique ever made about parapsychology, well here you go [6] That's the orgy of information state before it was summarized and slimmed down. Revert it and let people bitch about you for awhile.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My humblest apologies for lumping you with Martinphi in my comments. I spoke hastily, to say the least. I did not simply add the criticisms found here, as A: I think they needed to stay in their own article, and B: Martinphi insists on chopping them as the existed, much less allowing new ones to be added. I never said every inane and fringe criticism needs to be heard. But the ones that were present in the unaltered version of this article were very-much mainstream criticisms, and they were being seriously clipped if not deleted outright by Martinphi. I don't want to add any criticisms, I just want the original ones in this article not deleted. VanTucky 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, I appreciate that. I too apologize if I've gotten carried away. To be honest, there's an ArbCom going on that was supposed to help alleviate some of these stresses. This particular stress is probably my fault as we all should have waited until the ArbCom was over before going back to editing. While the ArbCom was going on, however, the parapsychology article remained an edit battleground, so I rushed through a rewrite and installed it hoping to smooth that over. It was better than what was there before, but apparently it needed more and wasn't finished. So this current flare up probably stems from that. I think it's fair to say that most of the editors here agree with you and don't want to see anything important removed. I know I do.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if that is the case...then I would agree to the merger (even though I think it makes a clear violation of WP:SIZE) if the content of this article is restored to its original breadth and then merged. Obviously a "Fraud" section is already present in the main article already though. VanTucky 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWNership discourages outside contributions. Based on the comment you left on my talk page, you seem to think that I'm referring to you without being explicit, but this is not about you; it's a general statement that is especially pertinent to these articles.

Reducing redundant or overly wordy content is desirable. Removing portions of the text that are not redundant or overly wordy is undesirable.

Antelan ^talk 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of what is desirable. If you're not talking about me, great. I just saw my name and a "make up my fucking mind". My mind is made up because it never changed : ) I've never recommended removing unduplicated content, just streamlining it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning merger...

I want to get a good idea of who supports this merger and who doesn't. Without adding any arguments for or against the merger just tell me whether you support or oppose the merger. This isn't a vote of any kind to determine the outcome, simply a straw poll to see who supports it right now and who doesn't. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. On the condition that the Controversy article is severly streamlined without removing non-duplicate points (in other words, get rid of the bulky quotes, duplicated points, one-person opinions, etc.).--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I am wary of "streamlining". I would want to get a consensus on a version of this article and then discuss whether or not that version should be merged. Antelan ^talk 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Any version of this article as it is will have no relation to how it might look if it were to be merged. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as stated previously. That's all I'm going to say on this topic. VanTucky 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Support if merging means to merge all the factual content of the article rather than cherry-picking. Personally, I'm not concerned with size of the main article. Also wary of "streamlining". If there is controversy, it should be fully reported rather than summarized. - LuckyLouie 00:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have a lot of concerns. My main one is that it wouldn't sit comfortably in any merger. It long and its substance is going to be so diluted that bar sources it just needs deleting. May other concern is that it is broad and would have to consider universal concerns about parpsychology and its advocates. It could end up again giving birth to child articles. Editors have raised serious concern by saying that it was there article and they can do with it what they want. I can't see how that works. I would prefer editors to come up with a new article based upon the original that doesn't have (a) the stigma of being "my" article (b) that can hopefully be paired with another article.

An article this size, with so many sources reduced to a few paragraphs isn't an option I would like to take. Mike33 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike, don't believe it. I never OWNed the article- in fact, I specifically sandboxed it so people could edit it. I originally refrained from editing a new version because I didn't want to own it- see talk page above. Only when Antelan said he wanted to merge it, and when it was obvious that people were doing little with it, did I edit it. What I actually said was, that people were on my back about deleting criticisms due to my pro-parapsychology POV. But these were criticisms which I put up in the first place. There is no issue with OWNing. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just a straw poll, Don't let it turn into a debate. Mike33 & Martinphi. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, apologies, didn't see the heading. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Only when the parapsychology article actually included the entirety of this article did I support the merger. After the new parapsychology article was introduced, the merger was entirely undone. Martinphi, you got a good start on this article. Antelan ^talk 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Antelan. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Slimmed down to essential and current points, and without the quotes. Nealparr has it right that the debate is endless, and where is the stopping point? I was wrong to write this as I did, because there is no logical stopping place in the discussion. We need to just mention (with sources) the essential arguments, and leave it at that. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the merger of this article, See the rough draft I drew up.

Please see [[7]] for more info. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)