Talk:Psionics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:07, 12 February 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psionics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This article was nominated for deletion on Feb 13 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Paranormal B‑class

	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.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Considered pseudoscience"

99.229.246.140 has been making this change, modifying the description of parapsychology as a pseudoscience to "considered by the scientific community to be a pseudoscience". The problem is, our reliable sources clearly indicate that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, and we have no reliable sources indicating otherwise. WP:YESPOV indicates that we should not state facts as opinions (in other words, we should not attribute things which are not simply held by the one group we're attributing). We also need to abide by WP:WEIGHT, and not indicate that the scientific community holds one opinion on parapsychology, but other groups equally hold the contrary position. I'm happy to discuss further, but I'd appreciate if the edit warring stopped in the meantime. What we'd need to make any progress are reliable sources contesting the pseudoscience label. 99.229, do you know of any you could produce? Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits have recently changed to removing the pseudoscience label, such as here. Ip, you really need to participate on the talk page. It's been a week now, and you're still edit warring. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:40, 2 February 2014 edit Mann jess (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 14,672 edits Archiving old threads. Oldest 2 years. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:07, 12 February 2014 edit undo Mann jess (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 14,672 edits →"Considered pseudoscience": Reply Next edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:

	99.229.246.140 has been making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psionics&diff=593621830&oldid=593619879 this] change, modifying the description of parapsychology as a pseudoscience to "considered by the scientific community to be a pseudoscience". The problem is, our reliable sources clearly indicate that parapsychology ''is'' a pseudoscience, and we have no reliable sources indicating otherwise. [[WP:YESPOV]] indicates that we should not state facts as opinions (in other words, we should not attribute things which are not simply held by the one group we're attributing). We also need to abide by [[WP:WEIGHT]], and not indicate that the scientific community holds one opinion on parapsychology, but other groups equally hold the contrary position. I'm happy to discuss further, but I'd appreciate if the edit warring stopped in the meantime. What we'd need to make any progress are reliable sources contesting the pseudoscience label. 99.229, do you know of any you could produce? Thanks.   — [[User:Mann_jess\|<b>Jess</b>]]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· [[Special:Contributions/Mann_jess\|Δ]][[User_talk:Mann_jess\|&hearts;]]</span> 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)		99.229.246.140 has been making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psionics&diff=593621830&oldid=593619879 this] change, modifying the description of parapsychology as a pseudoscience to "considered by the scientific community to be a pseudoscience". The problem is, our reliable sources clearly indicate that parapsychology ''is'' a pseudoscience, and we have no reliable sources indicating otherwise. [[WP:YESPOV]] indicates that we should not state facts as opinions (in other words, we should not attribute things which are not simply held by the one group we're attributing). We also need to abide by [[WP:WEIGHT]], and not indicate that the scientific community holds one opinion on parapsychology, but other groups equally hold the contrary position. I'm happy to discuss further, but I'd appreciate if the edit warring stopped in the meantime. What we'd need to make any progress are reliable sources contesting the pseudoscience label. 99.229, do you know of any you could produce? Thanks.   — [[User:Mann_jess\|<b>Jess</b>]]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· [[Special:Contributions/Mann_jess\|Δ]][[User_talk:Mann_jess\|&hearts;]]</span> 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			:The edits have recently changed to removing the pseudoscience label, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psionics&diff=595143992&oldid=595121179 here]. Ip, you really need to participate on the talk page. It's been a week now, and you're still edit warring.   — [[User:Mann_jess\|<b>Jess</b>]]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· [[Special:Contributions/Mann_jess\|Δ]][[User_talk:Mann_jess\|&hearts;]]</span> 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)