Talk:Paranormal

Recent edits

Regarding these edits. Simply put, Wikipedia is bound by its editorial policies to give prominence and weight to the mainstream view. The argument that "mainstream scientists who refuse to accept these claims" are holding back progress by parapsychologists may have a place in the article, but it would need to be put in the context of a minority opinion, and attributed to a specific reliable source that is independent of parapsychology, typically a disinterested third party observer or analyst. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Duke

If my memory serves me correctly, the major center of U.S. research into the paranormal was at Duke University (Duke University Library Exhibits | About the Exhibit · Early Studies in Parapsychology at Duke), yet it is not even mentioned (nor is U. of Virginia, which I only recently learned ( The Reincarnated (getpocket.com) ) conducted research into the topic. I think at least Duke's research should be incorporated into the article., as well as research done in the USSR ((10) OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PARAPSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION | Edwin C May - Academia.edu). Kdammers (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Not without mainstream sources. May sounds like Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Schroeder's book Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain, believing everything and writing it down. But I think there should be enough sources for Joseph Banks Rhine, his gullibility and the flaws in his work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand Your response. The whole filed is not within mainstream sources, but Duke and UVa are two leading American universities, and the Soviet research was sponsored by the (then) government of a world power. Also, as to UVa, the English Wikipedia has a long article on Stevenson, the main researcher at UVa. Kdammers (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that Rhine's position and methods are mainstream?

government of a world power Scientific questions are decided by those who have power, not by evidence?

Stevenson is also fringe, like Rhine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to know more about the Duke research, your best resource would be "The elusive science : origins of experimental psychical research" by Seymour Mauskopf. https://archive.org/details/elusivescience0000unse/page/n13/mode/2up Sennalen (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that any paranormal researchers are mainstream; I'm just saying they should be mentioned. I didn't know that Rhine was at Duke. I was reading the present article and struck by the fact that there was no mention of Duke, which I recalled as being an often-cited school where such research was conducted. What's wrong with the example ref. I gave for Duke? How about these, then: Studying Paranormal Activity - Parapsychology Department at U.Va - richmondmagazine.com ( one of the most famous programs was at Duke University"); Ghosts, Spirits, and Psychics: The Paranormal from Alchemy to Zombies: The Paranormal from Alchemy to Zombies, a book by M Cardin - 2015; Unbelievable: Investigations into ghosts, poltergeists, telepathy, and other unseen phenomena, from the Duke Parapsychology Laboratory, a book by S. Horn; Time magazine Dec. 10, 1934 and Oct. 5, 1936 (see the magazine's online index). Kdammers (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The Duke source is completely uncritical: it just says those studies were done. It does not mention that they were discontinued because the field was so riddled with mistakes and fraud that it lost all credibility. The May source is also uncritical. We should be very careful with sources that pretend that everything was alright with that stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

How about Remember parapsychology? It's still being studied – despite the scorn (nbcnews.com) and the book Unbelievable: Investigations into Ghosts, Poltergeists, Telepathy, and Other Unseen Phenomena, from the Duke Parapsychology Laboratory? If the field lost its credibility, then there should be acceptable sources to document this. Kdammers (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As to Soviet research, how about? Vilenskaya, Larissa, and Edwin C. May. "Anomalous mental phenomena research in Russia and the former Soviet Union: A follow up." The Star Gate Archives: Reports of the United States Government Sponsored Psi Program, 1972-1995. Volume 3: Psychokinesis (2019): 422; Polidoro, Massimo. "Secrets of a Russian Psychic." SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (1997): 45; and Maire III, Mr Louis F., and Major JD LaMothe. Soviet and Czechoslovakian parapsychology research: The DIA Report from 1975 with new addenda. Lulu. com, 2014.

Please note, I am not pushing an agenda to support psi research or any specific researchers; I simply don't want the history of this stuff "disappear." Duke's research and Soviet research were very much at least in the general American consciousness about fifty years ago, and I think this should be noted, regardless of what happened to Duke's center and research in the USSR. Kdammers (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I missed this contribution back then.

All I am saying is that we need to comply with WP:FRINGE. Gullible sources will not do, we need ones representing the mainstream. Polidoro is good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Destructive reversions

I'd like to document here that user LuckyLouie has destructively reverted a constructive edit made in good-faith by me. The revert message was Completely unsourced, when the paragraph presented 10 in-line links to other articles, making no claims of its own not immediately found on the articles themselves.

This is a clear example of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and a blatant violation of Wikipedia:FIXTHEPROBLEM. If anyone believes that in-line references are needed in addition to the internal links (which I don't believe they are), feel free to copy said references from the given articles, rather than destroy other peoples contributions, which is unacceptable.

If further destructive reversions are made (rather than discussion in this talk page), I will escalate this to the relevant moderation boards. 177.81.20.20 (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Pinging User:LuckyLouie also. User:Drmies (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Feel free to improve the section by adding in the relevant sources from the linked articles, as mentioned. Do not do disruptive edits. I have looked further into the article's history and found many more examples of seeming disruptive editing by the aforementioned user. 177.81.20.20 (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    • No, that is not how this works. Content needs to be verified with secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
      • It is exactly how Wikipedia works. From WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM: " Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can. As explained above, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained.
        • Yes. And I can't fix that, nor do I want to fix problems you caused. I have no way of knowing whether your "facts" belong in the finished article, because there are no secondary sources that can help me assess that. Do your job properly. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)