Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

I'll be posting a rewrite of this article over the next day or so, addressing some of the issues pointed out on the talk page. Anything in particular anyone wants addressed before I post it? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just get rid of what's here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you be using parts of my draft? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, mostly. I'm going to doctor it up a bit since it's unfinished, but just consider what I'm putting up as temporary. You have far more resources than I. I'm just putting something up to fix the immediate problems with the article.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite installed 25 May 2007 is based on the content at User:Annalisa_Ventola/Sandbox with revisions to beef up some areas and provide an accurate representation of the controversy over parapsychology User:Nealparr/Parapsychology_Draft. It's probably not perfect, and not exhaustive (going with summaries of key information versus everything under the sun), but it is a fair treatment that doesn't glamorize parapsychology nor berates it. I'm hoping editors will see this rewrite as an opportunity to foster stability in the article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job Nealparr, the rewrite is much better than the mess before. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

All I did was formatting and a few additions. The kudos definitely should go to User:Annalisa_Ventola who wrote most of it and provided the background studies for sourcing. Barnstar her!

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Nealparr. You really did your homework on those additions! I'm especially impressed with your paragraph, 'Controversial Science', though I think it should be placed as the third paragraph in the lead. Eventually, I would like to get more discussion of anomalous psychology in there (especially in 'Parapsychology Today'), but what we have up there will do quite nicely for now. I'm extremely busy with OSS right now, but I'll see if I can do more chipping at it this week. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I want to say I think this new version is not only much better than the mess there was before, but also a very good example of how to achieve a stable and neutral article on a disputed topic. I suggest that a good chunk of this talk page be archived again, the article is very different now.

Now, I'll take the liberty to make a few adjustments. I intend to change the "Critical response" subsection into a normal section, and maybe change its title to "Controversy". I'll also add a link to Selection bias in the "Controversy over experimental results" subsection and one to Project Alpha in the "Fraud" subsection. I hope all this will be ok?

Lastly, I think it would be good to have citations in the "normal" numbered manner, even if just so we can add parentheses in the end of sentences without it look awkward. AoS1014 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any changes as I don't plan to spend much time personally maintaining the new version, I just wanted anything better than the old version. I did want to comment on moving the criticism to a separate section, because I debated that myself in my draft. If you notice in Annalisa's version, it does have it's own section. I purposely made it a part of the research section because I didn't want repetitive information. If you notice in the research section, parapsychology research is presented, then the criticism against that research is presented. If we were to move it to a separate section, it would have to be research, then criticism, then criticism again in a separate section. It would have to be this way because the parapsychology research can't be presented sans criticism. If they had separate sections, it would look and read that way, like the critical analysis is an afterthought instead of directly related to the research.

As I said, you can make these changes, and I won't be opposing it, but I hope you consider the above before you do. The other changes are surely welcomed. I would have linked the selection bias myself but didn't know there was an article on that. The Project Alpha I didn't include because it didn't appear that the results were relevant, as in I didn't see any evidence to support that the research included the hoaxed material. My personal opinion is that Project Alpha's criticism, that parapsychologists can be duped, are overshadowed by natural criticism in methodologies and controls. Anyone can cheat, but if the experimental design is already flawed (as critics assert), that seems more important. If you believe it's notably relevant, however, please feel free to add it.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. We are really hoping to acheive neutrality and stability here, so I'm glad you like this new version better. I think your proposed changes should be just fine.

I've advocated the switch to Harvard referencing for a variety of reasons, and you can find much of the discussion here. I proposed the change because Harvard referencing is the style used in the physical and social sciences, of which parapsychology is a part. It is my opinion that if we want to encourage scholarly contributions and scholarly discussion about parapsychological topics at Wikipedia, then a scholarly system of referencing must be employed. Personally, I like seeing names and dates in paranthetical references because I can tell at a glance where and when the information being used came from. I allowed opportunities for people to veto this change (including leaving notice at this talk page for interested parties to visit my sandbox and weigh in on it), and I didn't face any strong opposition, so I went forward with it. It would be a lot of work to change it back, so I would really like to see Wikipedia users give this system a chance...at least for a month or two. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I considered the inline citation myself, and have even argued against using the APA style. After giving it some thought, however, I agree with Annalisa. There's so many opinions about parapsychology in pop culture, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we should foster scholarly discussion. Even when parapsychology is seen as bunk, it's seen as bunk by scholars. So that's one reason. The other reason is because of how inline citations are used at Wikipedia in controversial articles. I've seen citation requests put on every single sentence here and elsewhere. This article (as written) has entire paragraphs included from the sources. I'd hate to see it decline into the same source [1] being repeated every [1] other [1] word [1]. Featured articles don't look that way, but for some reason these types of articles end up like that.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I ended up making the changes before reading the responses, I didn't expect them to come so fast. I did make "Criticism" into a section, I think criticism is currently fairly concentrated there. As it is, I don't feel the need for redundant information, it seems to work fine to me. One thing that influenced the decision was that having a Criticism section here will possibly allow other parapsychology pages (PK, telepathy, etc) to point here, avoiding the need for redundancy among the pages (and also making it less work to balance neutrality among all pages, I think).

The link I added was to Publication bias, which is what the article was talking about. I still feel like a link to Selection bias can have a place somewhere, but I'm not sure where.

I also added the link to Project Alpha. I think if the article is talking about it, a link is only natural. Criticism about the project could always be added to that page, right? It would be good if somebody could add that link in a manner that doesn't require two parentheses in sequence (I tried a little but couldn't find a way without modificating a chunk of text). This kind of thing was actually the only reason I suggested to change the citing system, apparently you guys have more fundamented reasons to want it as it is. AoS1014 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at adding your Project Alpha link without the need for paranthesis. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks pretty good. I think everything is neutral and comprehensive without going to extremes. Hopefully the article will remain stable as it is now. If so, it'd be the first time I've seen it stable in the two years I've been hanging out here.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just had a cursory scan over the article and I must admit, it definately "looks" better than the previous version. Hopefully will give it a good reading in the next few days (weeks) and comment. Shot info 02:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't verbatim before, but the "Scope" section [quote] is meant to be a quoted section [direct quote]. I fixed it so that it verbatim mirrors the source. Everyone has an opinion about the things listed and it's likely to get out of hand otherwise. We're looking for stability here versus "yeah, but...". That's the reason it is quoted directly. Alterations would be misquoting. Sorry if this wasn't apparent in the original version. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this statement means. Are you asking people not to edit the "scope" section? Antelan ^talk 21:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Sorry, I mis-worded that. I didn't mean the entire section, just not the quoted part because it is a direct quote.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Antelan ^talk 21:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This diff makes me concerned that we're seeing the POV shift, subtly but inexorably, towards one perspective in this article. No support was given to the recent one-word edit, but I'm not going to revert because I don't want to play that kind of game. I'd just like to point out that neither sentence is referenced, nor is much of this article, so it's not clear why the word was changed at all. In fact, my sense is that "scientists" is just as accurate and more illustrative than "critics", since these people tend not just to be critics, but also scientists. Antelan ^talk 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather it say "scientists" too because that's what the source says. The paragraph is sourced, to (Odling-Smee, 2007). I know because I wrote this section. The rest of the article is sourced as well. It just doesn't have a [1] every other word.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather hoping that editors will stick to grammar, typos, notable additions that may have been overlooked, and similar edits, at least for a cooling off period. Remember, this article has been the subject of edit warring for at least the two years I've been here. Let's just leave it alone for a bit. Not trying to WP:OWN (in fact I'm disowning it), just asking editors to consider that even the smallest changes might spark tension.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, who knew that changing one word would get such a reaction? I changed 'scientists' to 'critics' because scientists aren't the only people who think that "parapsychological study is at best on the outer edges of science because it involves research that doesn't fit within standard theoretical models accepted by mainstream science." So do philosophers and journalists, for instance. But if 'scientists' is exactly what the article says, then fine.

And this article is quite carefully referenced (using mostly mainstream journals and secondary sources no less), so I'm really not sure what you are talking about, Antelan. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Nealparr understands my concern in this case very well, especially as he has been involved directly in the paranormal arbitration process. Also, my statement about references was a commentary on the choice of Harvard citation instead of the sentence-by-sentence citation that is common to Wikipedia articles. It's not that one way is better than the other. Harvard referencing is smoother for the reader, while sourcing each statement allows any contentious point to be analyzed in the context of its source. Both have their strengths. Antelan ^talk 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely understand your concern, but I can also vouche for Annalisa and encourage a WP:AGF on her edits. She wrote most of the article.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that Annalisa was acting in poor faith. She has always been very cordial. Antelan ^talk 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In the section on DMILS it ends with a reference to a paper by Schmidt et al saying it has statistically significant results. Is this based on the abstract? I ask because there's an extended abstract of the same paper when it was published in 2002, which is much more negative. It reads: "We found a small mean effect size of d=0.11 which was highly significant (p=.001). This finding is undermined by a best-evidence-synthesis of seven studies with the highest methodological standard, which show a smaller, non-significant mean effect size (d = .05). [...] For the DMILS meta-analysis it has to be assumed that some of the effects reported earlier are due to artifacts and shortcomings." I wonder if the 2004 paper is as supportive of the field as this article makes out. We need more quotes from the paper itself. http://www.parapsych.org/pa_convention_abstracts_2002.html#21 Ersby 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ersby, I just spent the morning reading the Schmidt et al paper, and had edited the DMILS paragraph to address your concerns because overall I did find that the summary was misleading. However, I'm not sure what I am supposed to make of the abstract that you linked above, it has to do with RNG experiments (not DMILS) and has no relation to the topic in question. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Wasn't paying attention.

http://www.parapsych.org/pa_convention_abstracts_2002.html#16

That's the abstract I was referencing. Ersby 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, what you referenced is the abstract for a conference presentation of the same BPS study. Hopefully, my changes to the article more accurately reflect what the study found. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Targ Nature article is summarized incorrectly. (Tart, C.T., Puthoff, H. E., & Targ, R. (1980). Information transfer under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 284, 191.) There is a Nature paper by Targ that shares this title, but the paper is from 1974 - Nature 251, p. 602. However, this paper does not survey cumulative data; it assesses the data that Targ and Puthoff collected from their studies on Uri Geller. There is a Targ letter to Nature in 1980 by a different title, but this paper is merely defending the results of the 1974 paper in response to a rebuttal written to Nature by another scientist. Antelan ^talk 03:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write that section, but I'm looking into it. I don't have access to all of Nature's articles. Would this be a more or less accurate representation of that article? Also, did you have a rewording suggestion?

Is Tart an author? I only saw Puthoff and Targ listed as authors. The sandboxed version wasn't complete when I reworked it and copied it over. There may be a missing source in that section.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little too busy to look into it right now, but that reference was provided by Dean Radin. There are others that might fit the summary more appropriately such as Dunne, B. J. & Jahn, R. G. (2003). Information and uncertainty in remote perception research, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17 (2), 207 –241. Or the article here. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr - Yes, Tart is an author of the 1980 letter, along with Targ and Puthoff. Targ and Puthoff are the only two authors of the 1976 paper. Yes, the URL you found is, as far as I can tell from matching bits and pieces, an ASCII-replication of the 1974 paper. Antelan ^talk 05:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tart, C. T., Puthoff, H. E. & Targ, R. Nature 284, 191 (1980) [^{[deprecated source?]} Tart, C.T., Puthoff, H. E., & Targ, R. (1980). Information transfer under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 284, 191] Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the letter is the source and provides more information beyond what original paper provided. Anyone got a copy of the letter? If so, it could be reworded to "In a letter published in the 1980 issue of Nature, so and so argued that..."

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, I'm confused by your linking. The first link you gave is to a Nature article that thoroughly debunks parapsychology's purported scientific status, and Uri Geller's claims specifically. It is not by Tart, Puthoff, and Targ. The second link demonstrates that Dean Radin also incorrectly sourced the article. Did anybody here read this article before referencing it? Antelan ^talk 05:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The link to Nature references the same way: Tart, C. T., Puthoff, H. E. & Targ, R. Nature 284, 191 (1980). Try doing a search for it. Why would you think it isn't correct to begin with? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

this also Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

However, I may be confused, because I don't know what you're talking about in the article. All I've done here is to find that the reference is correct and does exist. I don't know how it's being used. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would try doing a search for the articles if I didn't have them on my desktop already. Again, this link that you keep pointing to me to isn't by Tart, et al. It's by Marks, and it rebuts the major claims of parapsychologists. Perhaps its most quotable quote: "Parascience (a term he interchanges with parapsychology) has all the qualities of a magical system while wearing the mantle of science." Surely this is not the article that you think it is. Antelan ^talk 06:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he means that it was referenced in that article by Marks. It's ref num 49.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, dude, but if you searched like I said, you find the ref. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, friend, the paper that you keep referring as being titled "Information transfer under conditions of sensory shielding" was published in 1976 by Targ and Puthoff, Nature 251. October 18, 1974. Pages 602-607. Marks is referring to the letter that these fellows, along with Tart, wrote in 1980 entitled "Information transmission in remote viewing experiments", Nature 284. March 13, 1980. Page 191. The Wikipedia article incorrectly attributed certain claims to the 1980 article. In good faith and having read the two articles, I pointed out the fact that it seemed most likely that the author of this wikipedia article meant to cite the 1974 article. Antelan ^talk 07:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I updated the section with a new source pointed out by Annalisa.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

@Antelan: This edit [1] might be considered what you pointed out previously to be a "subtle" POV shift. The article this is sourced from clearly implies that the methods used are seen as scientific, and this was arguably an adequate paraphrasing of that. The specific statement in the article was "how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific?" WP:WEASEL might call for the dropping of "in general", but deleting the whole phrase? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the main tenet, outlined in a nutshell at the beginning of WP:WEASEL, is Avoid phrases such as "some people say" without sources. I'd have had no problem with a sourced sentence making the "general" claim, and if I was under the impression that there was one I'd certainly have left it and looked for a source to back it up. The rest of the article seems much more strongly written, and I don't think that such an un-backed-up sentence in apparent violation of WP:WEASEL helps it. Antelan ^talk 06:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it up a bit. Let me know if that's better.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Many scientists think the lab's work was pointless at best. But the closure highlights a long-running question: how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific? - This, to me, doesn't support even that claim. In general, questions are not claims; furthermore, this is a rhetorical question, used to transition to the next paragraph. Finally, this is a news article by a journalist writing for Nature, not a research paper or letter from a scientist. The same article says, "Many scientists disagree. Besides being a waste of time, such work is unscientific, they argue, because no attempt is ever made to offer a physical explanation for the effect." Should we reference these in counterpoint? ("A journalist implied that parapsychology is scientific, but many scientists disagree.") It would just be too much POV pushing. I think it makes the most sense to leave out that sentence. Like I said before, the article is better without it. Antelan ^talk 06:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording in our article says "the methods used by parapsychologists". Statistical analysis (the method) is widely seen to be scientific. The source we're using backs that up, and you'll be hard pressed to find a source that says statistics isn't scientific : ) Let me explain better: We're not talking about the work of parapsychology in this phrase, we're talking about the methods used. We're not calling parapsychology scientific. We're saying statistics are scientific. The counterpoint we've included is that whether it's worthwhile to apply statistics to the paranormal research is subjective (straight from the source). When our source calls the "work" (not method) unscientific, they are talking about things beyond the methodology, they are talking framework. Sidenote (nothing to do with the above), the source isn't an editorial (the journalist's opinion). It relies on the opinions of the interviewees (the various scientist's opinions).

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, the source does not back up the statement you are making. Remember how you created this subheading to contest my removal of a sentence? You put that sentence back into the article. My response, above, is an explanation of why that sentence does not belong in this article. You then changed the sentence to read "An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature indicated that the statistical methodology used by parapsychologists may be scientific". The article says nothing of the sort. It actually does say such work is scientific, but I'm not arguing we should have that in there. I'm saying the source doesn't say what you claim it says, and therefore the statement should be removed. Antelan ^talk 07:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits are compromises to the issue you raised. I think the source clearly states that the methods are scientific when it says "if the methods used are scientific", but if you don't agree I'm not sure what would make it alright in your eyes. It doesn't just imply that the methods are scientific, it actually says that. It doesn't say that parapsychology is scientific, but it does say that the tool of parapsychology is. It even uses that same tool later on to say why the parapsychology interpretation may be wrong (H. Bösch et al. Psychol. Bull. 132, 497–523; 2006). I would like the statement to remain because this paragraph is talking about why parapsychology is seen to be on the outer edges of science (which is the subject of the source). If we don't explain why some consider it scientific, ie. because the methods are, the counter-point that some feel it isn't scientific doesn't make sense. How about I just step back and let you tell me what you're looking for and we can go from there, because I don't see why it's still an issue.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The original wording that was removed said "Although, in general, the methods used are considered scientific..." I understand the weaselness, but how is the rest of it controversial? Who doesn't consider meta-analysis to be scientific? Would it be better if it said "Although the methods are considered scientific (source saying meta-analysis is scientific)"? I could do that instead, but that seems like one of those sourcing the obvious cases.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that we are jumping back and forth between two subjects. One is the subject of meta-analysis, and the other is the subject of the statement that I removed and its sourcing. Let me deal with meta-analysis first. Meta-analysis to a method as Reader's Digest is to a reliable source. That is, they are both secondary. Reader's Digest is a secondary source that doesn't publish original research, but they report on it. Meta-analysis is a secondary method that does not gather data, but instead reports on aggregates of it. Meta-analysis is not a method of parapsychology; it is a tool of statistics. Or, if you want to be inclusive, meta-analysis is a tool of virtually every field that can produce data, scientific or not. Now, whether or not that data is valid has nothing to do with meta-analysis, but everything to do with the research methods of the field. Meta-analysis in this argument is simply a red herring.

Second, about the statement that I removed and its sourcing: I don't see how the article gives support to the statement in any of the forms you've shown me. I've described why this is so in my previous comment. As I've said several times, the article stands well without the statement. Antelan ^talk 08:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The version I put below isn't dependent on the source we disagree on and only refers to what you call a secondary methology. It doesn't make a claim that any "primary" methodology is scientific. It's an awful lot like the one you removed originally. It belongs here because it balances the section. The section currently reads as "here's why it's not science" versus the Nature treatment where it presented it as "here's why some think it is science and why that's disputed". The removal is a subtle POV shift, and this is the intro section. I'm concerned that your version gives the topic "the treatment" and there's no reason to do that. There's nothing wrong with the version below. It's informative and when taken with the context of the rest of the intro, informs the reader what the big fuss is all about. Now, I'm compromising on the source though I completely disagree with you. The article is clearly about meta-analysis and says that the methods of parapsychology (sans framework) is scientific. I'm willing to put that to the side. What's wrong with the version below?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I put it back to your edit until we work this out. Now, is there anything wrong with:

Although the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific, an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one" (Odling-Smee, 2007).

The source covers the quote. Do I need to find a source that says meta-analysis is scientific?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your statement has two parts: (1)"The statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific." (2)"An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one."

The second statement is clearly from the Odling-Smee source, and is sourced properly. I don't see any source for the first part. More problematically, as I mentioned above, meta-analysis is a red herring. People do not, in general, have a problem with meta-analysis per se, which is good news for statistics but not particularly germane to parapsychology. The rest of the methods are what people question. This is why singling out meta-analysis and saying it is accepted is a red herring. This is why I can't see how part 1 of that statement fits into the article, while part 2 is appropriately sourced. Antelan ^talk 08:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The first part doesn't need a source because it's obvious. If you need a source that meta-analysis is scientific, and absolutely need it, I'll go find you one. This statement isn't about all the other things that go along with parapsychology. It's not a red herring, it's about part 2. It only introduces the quote, which is about statistics. The first part puts the second part into context. You seem to be trying to fit all of the debate over parapsychology into one sentence. I'm just using part one to introduce part two.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what, forget it. You win by exhaustion. I don't think I can reason with you if you seriously think meta-analysis is a red herring when that is what most of the Nature article is about. You seem to want this article to read a certain way and I am so done with all of that. This sentence always reflected what the source was about. It only suffered the weaselness. I don't know if you just want to be argumentative or what, but come on, did you read the article? The article is all about whether something that uses scientific methods is science if it doesn't have a scientific framework. And you're arguing that it doesn't say that? I seriously don't know why this article is on my watchlist. I'm done, you win, whatever.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather 'lose' than win by exhausting you. I actually think we might be talking about different articles. The Nature article that I thought we were talking about (by Odling-Smee) is not at all about meta-analysis; it's about the closure of the PEAR lab. Are you thinking of a different article? Antelan ^talk 10:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, really, I actually think we're talking about the same article. That article was about the closure of the PEAR lab, and it brought up a few topics in parapsychology in its discussion of the lab's closure. This is not a Nature paper, but a Nature news article. It's a superficial treatment of the closure of the PEAR lab. To construe that article as being all about whether something that uses scientific methods is science if it doesn't have a scientific framework is pretty far off base. It's an article that has one sentence about that, and that sentence is literally worded in the form of a question. A question about a philosophical idea in a news article has been turned into a truth statement about that idea in an encyclopedic article. The problems with that are manifold. Antelan ^talk 10:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, again I don't have a lot of time for debate, but let me toss in two cents. In order to accurately paint a portrait of the field, we have to show in the lead that many do regard the field scientific, even though its methods are criticized and its results are hotly contested. If the Nature article is not a proper source to identify this, then there are other sources that can do the job (such as this chapter from Harvey Irwin's book or James Alcock's article summarizing the field). We can not leave the lead unbalanced.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The news article that Nealparr and I are referring to presents three positions: the 'pro' position (in the end, the decision to pursue tiny statistical edges is subjective), the 'con' position (such work is a waste of time and unscientific) and a middle ground (any question can be asked, no matter how unlikely, but you have to move on when you don't get conclusive results). We're actually citing the 'pro' position from this article, not the con or the middle ground. I'm fine with this, but I don't want you to think that we're being POV against parapsychology with this sentence; it's the pro sentence from that article.

Also, I don't see how we're going to avoid weasel words by trying to force a "many think the methods are scientific" statement in there. The physics article doesn't invoke "many people think". We don't need to here, either. We just need to represent the methods that are used by parapsychology, just as the methods of physics are stated in the physics article. Antelan ^talk 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the same article, and it's not the "pro" position. This statement isn't about the "work" of parapsychology. It's about the "method" of parapsychology. The method (meta-analysis) is said to be scientific in the article. The middle ground and con positions are talking about the work of parapsychology in general and presents framework and pointlessness as the reason, not methodology. Here's a copy [2]. The article uses the closing of the PEAR lab as an opportunity to highlight "a long-running question: how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific?" The bulk of the rest of the article is a discussion of that question and why the work is controversial, examining both PEAR's meta-analysis and the meta-analysis against that (H. Bösch et al.), and showing the various opinions, from scientists. That's exactly what it is about. Our article isn't a paper either. It's a mainstream encyclopedia entry that examines, among other things, philosophical questions. This section in our article is talking about the philosophical question, not data. This source is perfect for that. It's not a New York Times news article. It's Nature. It certainly meets Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source about the topic and talks specifically about what our paragraph here is talking about. My wording was an adequate summary of the points in the article. The article is the most recent discussion in Nature about the topic (Feb. 2007). There's no reason for that line to be removed because it fits in this article, it balances the section, it's a lead into the quote, it's informative for people who come here wondering why there's a controversy, and follows Wikipedia guidelines for submission. Even if I'm off by a few degrees, I'm enough on the subject of the source where it shouldn't be like pulling teeth. I'm not going to argue about it because after dozens of these exact same arguments over minutia, I am just not interested anymore. Here I'm not even arguing for it to be put back in, just explaining why I don't care anymore.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro, con, middle.

Pro = Meta-analysis methodology is scientific, and parapsychology work is worthwhile despite a lack of framework.

Con = Meta-analysis methodology is scientific, but parapsychology work is worthless or unscientific because it lacks a framework.

Middle = Meta-analysis methodology is scientific, but the interpretation of it and whether or not to pursue it is entirely subjective.

Our article here said exactly the middle and this is what the source says.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no textual support for any of your claims beginning with "meta-analysis," since the article makes no statement about the scientific validity of meta-analysis. Your statement, "The method (meta-analysis) is said to be scientific in the article," is demonstrably false. That would make for an interesting article about statistics, but this is an article about the closure of a lab at Princeton. Antelan ^talk 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So there can be no opacity with regards to the article's pro/con/middle, I am copying sentences word-for-word:

Pro: "In the end, the decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws is a subjective one."

Con: "Many scientists disagree. Besides being a waste of time, such work is unscientific, they argue, because no attempt is ever made to offer a physical explanation for the effect."

Middle: "William Happer, a prominent physicist at Princeton, takes the middle ground. He believes the scientific community should be open to research that asks any question, however unlikely, but that if experiments don't produce conclusive results after a reasonable time, researchers should move on. "I don't know why this took up a whole lifetime," he says."

Antelan ^talk 20:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We could avoid weasel words by simply stating something like "Parapsychologists promote a scientific approach to studying various typs of anomalous phenomena, yet their methods and results are contested by critics." Then cite the two articles I linked above as well as the Nature article.

I think the Nature article does a good job of summarizing the controversy, and NealParr's summary does not just present a pro position. However, I do think that the article is a bit overused and some other sources (like the two I linked above from a psychologist and a career skeptic) could help flesh out the lead. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Nature article does a commendable job summarizing the controversy, as evidenced by the pro/con/middle statements I've highlighted above. Nealparr's summary includes material that is not actually present in the article, so it isn't a true summary of the positions of the article. My primary concern is that when we make a statement and back that statement with a source, that source had better say what we are claiming it says. Antelan ^talk 21:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument that the Nature article needs to specifically say that meta-analysis is scientific is an example of just being argumentative. No one, not in that article, nor anywhere else challenges meta-analysis as being unscientific. It's obvious. It doesn't need to specifically say that meta-analysis is scientific in the article. But guess what, it does. It says "if the methods used are scientific". You argue that that statement is unimportant because it has a question mark at the end. Well, it does have a question mark because it's a question that is answered in the rest of the article. This is totally forest for the trees and why I'm saying I'm getting tired of it. The context of the article at Nature says exactly what I'm saying it says. Your pro- con- and middle- statements are "demonstrably false" because they are clearly referring to a lack of scientific framework to explain the results and are talking about whether the field is worthwhile, not that the results were gathered by unscientific means. None of your examples talk about the methods, so how can they be use to represent a pro, con, and middle view of the methods? The first one isn't even pro, it says "subjective", which is neutral. Remember, the statement that you removed was talking about the methods, not parapsychology as a whole, which the article clearly says lacks a framework and may be unscientific, just like our article here says.

You guys have fun, but please take my advice as one who has been working on this article for some time. Line by line deconstruction will burn you out very quickly. It's not even a good editing practice. The context of the entire article presents exactly what you want it to present, but this one line is important because it explains why there is a controversy in the first place. The statistical methodology used by parapsychologists is scientific, so that's why people think it is. All of the other criticism explains why it may be unscientific despite the scientific method. That's how the article read previously. The edit is a subtle POV shift away from that. That's the most important part, but your arguments of why it needs to be removed doesn't make any sense if you actually read the article at Nature and comprehend what it's about. It's exactly about how scientists view parapsychology as questionable despite their practice of using a scientific method.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being argumentative. I'm explaining to you how to cite sources. The source says nothing about the validity of meta-analysis, so in your discussion of meta-analysis you do not say that the source calls it valid. Sorry, this source does not say what you want it to say. Antelan ^talk 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion, because as I already said it does say that. What would it need to say for you to be happy?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

All you'd need to do is to do what I've done: quote to me the portion of the article in support of your position, specifically about meta-analysis. Antelan ^talk 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that it needs to say specifically that "meta-analysis is scientific". That is being argumentative because it's in the very least implied, even if you don't agree that it's clearly stated. It's surely implied when the article uses the H. Bösch et al. meta-analysis to show why the PEAR meta-analysis isn't accepted by scientists.

Second question, what does the source have to do with the version I put above that you're rejecting?

Although the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific, an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one" (Odling-Smee, 2007).

As you pointed out, the source only has to do with the second part. So if, as you say, the source doesn't cover the scientificness of meta-analysis, what does that have to do with the first part? Are you saying that the first part needs a source as well? What if it said:

Although the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific (Another Source), an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one" (Odling-Smee, 2007).

You still going to have a problem with it?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Either the source says what you claimed, or it doesn't. There is no gray area. I see no quote. And to conflate "meta-analysis" with all of the other methods used by parapsychologists, then validate those methods because meta-analysis is broadly accepted, is willfully misleading. Antelan ^talk 22:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Meta-analysis is the WP:N method of contemporary parapsychology which is the topic of the intro paragraph. Whatever validation you think was implied is destroyed by the quote that says it's just a subjective interpretation. Parapsychology is not validated by this Wikipedia article at all.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, meta-analysis is not the method of contemporary parapsychology. Medicine uses meta-analysis, too, but it would be equally inaccurate to say that meta-analysis is the method of contemporary medicine. You have to have analyses before you can have meta-analyses. In order to do the original analysis, you have to have data, and methods for analyzing that data. To have data, you have methods for collecting data. Parapsychology does some sort of data collection and primary analysis. This requires methods. These are the methods that are pertinent to the discussion of parapsychology. I can explain meta-analysis vs primary analysis at greater length if it would be helpful. Antelan ^talk 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were done here. The primary (first) methods used by parapsychology is statistics (they do a RNG and collect statistics), their notable method (what you'd call secondary) is meta-analysis. They design statistical experiments and then apply meta-analysis to the statistics. The whole controversy is over the meta-analysis. Contemporary parapsychology is statistical experiments and the controversy is over the meta-analysis. You really are argumentative, and may not even realize it. You keep laying out these arguments that have nothing to do with anything. If the following methods are used by parapsychology, 1) running a RNG machine, 2) compiling data and statistics, 3) running meta-analysis on the statistical data, and the main controversy being talked about in mainstream periodicals is #3, guess what, that's the WP:N methodology.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that ad hominem is necessary here. Labeling me as argumentative and then dismissing my comments are not constructive. Back to the point: Statistics are never primary methods. Statistics analyze data. The primary methods are used to generate the data. The validity of the conclusions of your meta-analysis depends on the validity of the methods used to generate the data. Therefore, you can run a totally scientific meta-analysis on invalid data and get an invalid result. This is why calling meta-analysis "scientific" is not informative - again, the validity of the result of a scientific meta-analysis depends on the validity of the original methods used to gather the data. Antelan ^talk 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary. You keep changing your argument, ie. being argumentative. First it was weasel and not sourced. I got rid of the weasel part and said the source was that Nature article. Then you wanted to know where it said the methods were scientific, I said in that phrase "if the methods used are scientific". You said that wasn't good enough because it had a question mark at the end. I said, alright, what about the context of the whole article? You said it had to specifically say it and that paraphrasing wasn't enough. You wanted a quote. Neverminding that paraphrasing is completely acceptable on Wikipedia, I said, alright, what if we just use the source as the second part. You said that was fine as long as the first part is sourced too. I find a source that says meta-analysis is scientific, now you're changing your argument again and saying that's only a partial truth. I keep trying to accomodate your issue, but it's like a moving target. All of this validity of the meta-analysis is your newest argument and to that I can only say: Read the Nature article. That is exactly what they are covering and I am trying to mirror that. The Nature article is (again, repeating myself) discussing whether or not it is unscientific, despite meta-analysis being scientific. Or in other words, "Therefore, you can run a totally scientific meta-analysis on invalid data and get an invalid result." That's what I've been saying. That's what the Nature article is saying. That's what our article here at Wikipedia was saying. That's what you just said.

Besides, just talking in circles here. I've already said put it in or leave it out, so all of this is just wasting both of our time. It's your edit. I don't support it. That's Wikipedia. I recommend getting feedback on whether it reads neutrally now and go from there.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for breaking this down line-by-line, but it will be more clear this way:

• You keep changing your argument, ie. being argumentative.

I am making several points, but they are pretty constant.

• First it was weasel and not sourced. I got rid of the weasel part and said the source was that Nature article.

I removed the weasel part. You then inserted the statement "An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature indicated that the methods used by parapsychologists may be scientific [...]".

• Then you wanted to know where it said the methods were scientific

Yes, because this was a new claim, and I didn't see where the article justified that statement.

• I said in that phrase "if the methods used are scientific". You said that wasn't good enough because it had a question mark at the end.

To quote myself from above, "A question about a philosophical idea in a news article has been turned into a truth statement about that idea in an encyclopedic article."

• I said, alright, what about the context of the whole article? You said it had to specifically say it and that paraphrasing wasn't enough. You wanted a quote.

I was able to find specific textual references for each of my points within the article. It is not unreasonable that you would be able to do so if the article backed that statent. Instead, the statement was simply a rhetorical question, a device used by the journalist to transition into the rest of the article. She never returned to it.

• Neverminding that paraphrasing is completely acceptable on Wikipedia, I said, alright, what if we just use the source as the second part.

Yep, that's totally fine by me.

• You said that was fine as long as the first part is sourced too. I find a source that says meta-analysis is scientific, now you're changing your argument again and saying that's only a partial truth.

Yeah, you're totally begging the question here. Your version of the article said, "An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature indicated that the methods used by parapsychologists may be scientific [...]." Meta-analysis is just one of the dozens of methods used by parapsychologists (including their primary methods for gathering and analysing data). To say that the "methods used by parapsychologists may be scientific" just because your source validates that one of their methods can be used scientifically is out-of-line.

• I keep trying to accomodate your issue, but it's like a moving target.

True - when you added that line to the article, I had a new issue with the line you added.

• All of this validity of the meta-analysis is your newest argument and to that I can only say: Read the Nature article. That is exactly what they are covering and I am trying to mirror that.

Oh no, the Nature article is most certainly not addressing meta-analysis per se.

• The Nature article is (again, repeating myself) discussing whether or not it is unscientific, despite meta-analysis being scientific.

This is why I keep asking for you to provide a quote - the article says nothing of the sort. It is mute on the status of meta-analysis. Even if this interpretation of the text were correct, it would be irrelevant to the version of the article that you proposed, which dealt with "methods used by parapsychologists" (which certainly includes more than just meta-analysis).

• Or in other words, "Therefore, you can run a totally scientific meta-analysis on invalid data and get an invalid result." That's what I've been saying. That's what the Nature article is saying. That's what our article here at Wikipedia was saying. That's what you just said.

I'm saying that just because meta-analysis may be done scientifically does not mean that you can then jump to the conclusion that "the methods used by parapsychologists may be scientific," unless meta-analysis were the only method that they used.

You are saying:

1. Meta-analysis is scientific
2. Parapsychologists use meta-analysis among their methods
3. Therefore, the methods used by parapsychologists are scientific

This is an Illicit major syllogism. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, because meta-analysis is not the only method used by parapsychologists. Consequently, I do not find that source sufficient to support the statement, "the methods used by parapsychologists may be scientific".

Antelan ^talk 02:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not accurately worded. My proposal says "the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists", not "the methods used by parapsychology". Each time above you quoted the latter, but the latter (original) was based on the literal line from the Nature article and that ship sailed long ago when we couldn't agree on what the article said. I changed it in each subsequent proposal to say "statistical methodologies" to address the very concerns you are repeating. I also moved it outside of "An article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature" long ago because we didn't agree on that, so as not to give the impression that Nature said it even though I believe it's clear enough. There's no "truth statement" about the methods of parapsychology being scientific in my proposals, only a statement about meta-analysis being scientific, which is the crux of the contemporary notable controversy, which is what this paragraph is talking about. All the other stuff is in the Criticism section. There's no statement at all about parapsychology being scientific, experimental data, conclusions, other methodologies, primary methodologies, or anything like that. It doesn't make a claim as to whether those are scientific. The statement that you find hard to swallow is only talking about statistical methodologies, which are verifiably scientific. All of the logical fallacies you say I'm making here aren't actually based on what my proposal said:

Although the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific, an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one" (Odling-Smee, 2007).

Again, this is not saying parapsychology is scientific. It is not saying all methods used by parapsychologists are scientific. It is not saying any conclusion or data asserted by parapsychologists are scientific. It simply explains why parapsychology is considered (by some) to be the scientific research into the paranormal, but fully explains in the paragraph around it why that is frequently disputed and explains that further in-depth in the Criticism section.

That's for my own explanation, above. I really do think at this point that you should get someone else's feedback about the neutrality of this article however. I'm personally done with it and have only been responding to you directly on the talk page.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion: I'm fine with this version that you've proposed (Although the statistical methodologies used by parapsychologists are considered scientific (Another Source), an article published in the February 2007 issue of Nature characterized the "decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws [as] a subjective one" (Odling-Smee, 2007).), so long as there is actually an RS that states that what is claimed. I'm all about proper attribution. I'm not inherently opposed to the statement, just to loose referencing. Antelan ^talk 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I find that to be reasonable. Since I'm obviously partial, I'll let someone else reinsert it if they agree with what I've said. If not, I'm cool with that too. Here's the "Another Source" that can be used: Meta-analysis: a tool for medical and scientific discoveries. Bulletin of the Medical Librrary Assocation. 1992 July; 80(3): 219–222. There's also a number of similar "meta-analysis is scientific" articles in its reference section that can be alternates.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your partiality is of little concern to me if the statement is accurate and you can find an RS that supports it. If you would like to write about meta-analysis and its scientific validity, that belongs in an article on statistics. If you would like to write about parapsychological methods, that belongs in this article. Antelan ^talk 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the statement is accurate and RS's are there now. Are we done yet? They're your edits, I certainly don't support them. Might as well add it to the ArbCom along with everything else while it's still ongoing. Link to this thread and get some feedback. I don't think it's neutral anymore. See what everyone else thinks.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Which of the ArbCom pages do you think I should post this to? They're all so long at this point, I'm not sure where it would get seen. If you're as unsure about it as I am, I'll just post it to the Workshop Discussion page. Antelan ^talk 02:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page maybe? It's up to you if you want to make a proposal out of it, but if you just want some feedback I recommend the talk page of the Workshop section. I'm personally addressing your arguments for removing the line, but the actual issue for the article itself is whether it currently reads neutrally. You can leave the line in or out, but I recommend addressing the neutrality of it whichever way. My personal opinion is that it comes down on parapsychology in the paragraph now, versus before where it talked about how there's a controversy. That's my opinion, but others might not catch that or see what I'm saying and disagree. If you do post it, please link to this thread because I'm not really interested in repeating myself anywhere : )

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Scope" area seems to be a violation of copyright and doesn't meet the criteria for fair use. Copyright being owned by the The Parapsychological Association all rights reserved. I'll advice someone re-write it and put it into their own words or else I'll have to request it be deleted immediately.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not supporting the article, so do with it as you wish, but it certainly does fit the criteria for fair use.[3]

The four factors of fair use are:

1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

This is non-profit and educational.

2) The nature of the copyrighted work;

This is a frequently asked question which clearly does not represent any sort of intellectual property they would reasonably want to keep internal.

3) Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Does not constitute either a large portion of the entire frequently asked questions nor a large part of the site as a whole.

4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

They are neither selling their frequently asked questions, nor would this portion reduce their ability to do so.

Copyrights are one of the things I've done a great deal of research on for my day job. Can you give one reason why it would be considered non-fair use?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can answer that: Too much text taken for no good reason when paraphrasing would be equally fine. If you do research for your day job perhaps you should be more dilligent. Typical fair use is only short paragraphs or sentences, not multiple ones. DreamGuy 03:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's numerous examples of fair used multiple paragraphs, but this isn't even a multi-paragraph use. It's just the list. The criteria for fair use is listed above and is quoted from the copyright office. It makes no mention of sentences, paragraphs, or anything your describing. The "too much text" is specifically covered by the proportion to the entire work, and it doesn't say anything about "no good reason". The "reason" it does mention is for non-profit/educational, ie. Wikipedia. I was pretty dilligent. It is fair use. I also said delete it if you feel like it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)