![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
"As a noun, the word psychic means a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena." As written, this makes it sound like WP is saying that there are people with the ability to produce psychic phenomena. Without a reliable source backing it up, WP can't say that, it's POV. Including a qualifier or putting it together with the following sentence would help, but as it stands, right now it's POV. -- Milo H Minderbinder 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think of it this way, because when it says "the word psychic means," it is just defining the word. It is like saying "The word pencil means a stick of carbon inside a piece of wood which you can write with." Then, if pencils were pseudoscience (or if a lot of people though so), couldn't we just go on to say "But some people think pencils don't exist"? The reason I think this is OK is that it is only a definition of the word. Don't you think? Myriam Tobias 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"Writers might consider this appropriate where they are trying to indicate a close relationship between two sentences" Precisely, Milo. And it is not the job of Wikipedia to say how closely skepticism about a thing relates to the thing itself. It is merely the job of Wikipedia to present both things. To use the semicolon is to introduce bias, and is therefore not NPOV. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the whole paragraph should be re-written? It looks pretty good the way it is, with a period. But maybe the skeptical part should have its own paragraph, and it should talk about cold reading? Myriam Tobias 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I messed up somebody's edit. It said "Edit conflict" and I put it from the bottom screen to the top one because it was back again the way it used to be. Myriam Tobias 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"So are you saying the definition shouldn't mention the existence/non-existence/dispute whatever at all?" I like to just define a word. Then say that there are objections to the phenomenon being real. I think we should fully explicate both sides. The only thing I really object to here is not seperating out the different thoughts. The definition, the pro, and the con should each have their own sentences or paragraphs. No mixing. The current version is fine.
I just want to say there is no evidence to suggest that it is a mythical creature. it is controversial, not impossible. there is hypothesis and theory as to whether it is possible that people can tap into psychic abilities or develop psychic abilities. there are people who believe and people who don't. Do we need it explained that there may be a god, it hasn't been proven outright, but neither has it been 100% proven that god doesn't exist. do we call god a mythical creature. I think it should be considered simply as a given, that you either believe it is possible or that it isn't.
This section is unsourced, notes that it is an under-researched topic, and is leaning towards being a how-to guide for a highly fringe topic. It's simply not very encyclopedic as it is. I would suggest removing it outright, though for now I've simply tagged it with {{ unsourced}} -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Smith Jones added "who claims" to this, and I think a qualifier makes sense. If you look at the history of this page, until Martin's recent push to go "qualifier free" the definition included the word "purported". I don't think this is POV at all, there are many articles on WP about subjects with an unproven existence that use similar wording. Is there support for "purported" or similar? This could certainly be a way to solve the lingering Semicolon Issue. -- Milo H Minderbinder 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[2]. I do not know. -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Consumed Crustacean, I think the first paragraph is very clear that this is only defining the word. And now there is a whole paragraph saying what skeptics think, and what parapsychologists think. Is that ok? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The term psychic comes from the Greek psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind).[1] It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher.[2] According to XXX the word means a person who can allegedly produce psi phenomena.(source saying that psychics are alleged to have paranormal powers) However, others believe that psychics may have the powers they claim. According to XXX, a psychic is a person who can produce psi phenomena.(source saying that a psychic is one who has paranormal powers- I can provide one) The term is often used interchangeably with medium, although many psychics attribute abilities they may have to ESP or clairvoyance rather than to contact with spirits.[2]
In this lead, we come right out and have it both ways. Of course, someone is going to insert "allegedly" in the second sentence also, but it will be far less easy to defend that change. This is a very clumsy way of doing it, but it at least makes the reader aware of the issues- it isn't just weasel-worded. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. "Psychic" means a certain thing. Whether it exists or not is in dispute. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
i decided to wanting ato sepereate that external liinks between "Pro-psyhcic" and "anti-psychic" websites and i wanted to get consensus before i getyellwed at again for "Vandalism". who else things that this is a good idea, and whowants to help me make it happen? Smith Jones 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The last discussion of this got sidetracked, so back on topic: does anyone else think the definition needs a qualifier of some sort (whatever we can agree is most neutral)? Right now we have "the word means a person who can produce psi phenomena" which seems to define the term as something that exists as opposed to something unproven to exist. I can't see that as NPOV or factually accurate based on the sources (and sorry, I don't consider the Parapsychological Association to be enough of an authority for WP to declare that it exists). Opinions? -- Milo H Minderbinder 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, the current version is: "As an adjective, the term psychic means any event which involves psi; as a noun, the word means a person who can produce psi phenomena."
I'd propose something along the lines of: "As an adjective, the term psychic means any event which purportedly involves psi; as a noun, the word means a person who can purportedly produce psi phenomena." -- Milo H Minderbinder 13:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Martin. I think it is right to say that a psychic has powers. Then we can disagree over whether or not there are any psychics. Why is it not neutral to define a term as what it really means? It is only a word. The word has a meaning. Myriam Tobias 23:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've made a request for comment at the village pump to get some outside opinions. Thanks for the responses so far. -- Milo H Minderbinder 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Milo believes it is biased because it doesn't say that there may not be any psychics in the same sentence with the definition? Myriam Tobias 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that there is an effort to change the title of this article from 'Psychic' to 'Purported psychic'.
The term 'psychic' needs a qualifer no more that the term 'musician,' 'artist,' 'poet,' or 'athlete' does. I realize that there is some sensitivity about the issue of whether or not psychics are really skilled at anything having to do with the paranormal, but Wikipedia isn't going to decide that for anyone. Most people looking up the term are going to have their own ideas about the subject.
I don't believe that Jonathon Edwards is doing anything otherwordly on his show, but if somebody asked me who he was, I would say that he's a medium, and then I might go on to say something about the techniques he may or may not be employing on his show. If someone were to ask me who T.S. Elliot was, I wouldn't call him a self-styled poet, but I sure don't like his work. Do you see where I am going with this?
All of these efforts to put 'purported', 'alleged', 'ostensible', or 'supposed' in front of every sensitive term at Wikipedia has nothing to do with neutrality. It has to do with a minority of editors trying to impose their worldview on everybody else and it really needs to stop. -- Annalisa Ventola ( Talk | Contribs) 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion. Nobody has proposed renaming this article. The category was renamed [[:Category:Purported psychics]] per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8#Category:Psychics. -- Minderbinder 00:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is why- and don't patronize Annalisa. You guys are the ones who have to prove yourselves. You are making, with the category, the claim that all psychics are merely "purported." However, the category "Psychics" only directs one to the term, which is then defined, and debate mentioned. Thus, you have to prove your point:. You say that all psychics are purported: prove it.
Martinphi (
Talk Ψ
Contribs)
01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Psychic" isn't a claim?
That's a claim. So for a person to go in the category Psychic, we'd need verification that the person can actually produce psi phenomena. Do we have that proof for anyone? Purported makes a claim, but it's a claim easily proven. For example, John Edwards purports to be a psychic, we have proof of that on the front of his website. -- Minderbinder 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I see. But why was the Psychic put into that category? Ok, here is how it looks: Purported psychics is a sub-category of Parapsychology. So that seems fine, as the psychics are only purported. I thought it was basically categorizing the Psychic page into the general category Purported psychics- and that this put all psychic phenomena under "Purported." I have no idea why this page had that category put on it, as it hardly mentions any psychics. But I don't have a problem with with this particular change.
So, it was my mistake- but you could have saved the time by informing me of this change, before doing it.
I also don't see any need for the Psychic category, as Parapsychology does the job for that. WDM, do you agree? As long as Purported psychics are a sub category of parapsychology? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
When I say "list of psychics" I'm referring to [[Category:Purported psychics]]. I don't know why "psychic" is in the category of "purported psychics" either. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes but the category is called "purported psychics". Why is the "psychic" article in that category? Is the psychic article a purported psychic? Wikidudeman (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, Milo, are you saying that categories are immune from the need to have citations? What I mean is, you aparently think that "Psychic" is pseudoscience (although "psychic" isn't a science). So basically what you're saying is that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Unless categories do not need any citation, could you give me a WP:V source for that, which is not contradicted by an even more WP:V source, such as the AAAS, Alcock, Randi, or Hyman? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean, psychic phenomena is linked to parapsychology, and parapsychology is pseudoscience? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Like we agreed above, in the dispute over "Supposed psychics," this page is about "Psychic," not particular loonies on TV. These are fakes, probably, and are not psychic. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, there are two things: the first one is, "psychic" is not itself a science. But, if we are talking about science done on psychic abilities, then that is parapsychology- are you calling that pseudoscience? I think the connection WDM is making with TV persons, is very loose. But you could make it. I think that is something of an answer to my original question, as to just how this article is connected to pseudoscience: it is connected by the psychic abilities being claimed by pseudoscientists such as those on TV. I only wish the connection were much more clear, however. The connection is not in the article -unless we do a culture section which makes the connection to the claim of "science" of the charlatans- but in the reader's mind only. I doubt that is enough to justify the category. But at least it is a reason. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Finding other opinion results for the level of belief or non-belief among the general public? That one poll result has been hanging out there by itself for a long time, and it's starting to get awfully lonely...
(Just remember to make sure whatever's added is cited and reliable; not that polls are really an accurate representation of everybody's opinions, since most people choose not to answer them, but it's the best source of info available.) Noclevername 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Critical thinking is taught in what "writing" classes"? 2.Explain how bible prophecy is rational. 3.Descarte's questioning was nothing more than an argument for the existence of a God. Read his meditations. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this discussion, however interesting, pertains to polls or to the article in general (see WP:TALK), so consider this a friendly encouragement to take it to email. =) — Elembis ( talk) 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
NealParr, 1.I don't believe that current writing classes teach the critical thinking that I'm talking about. 2.Being "open" to something as absurd to bible prophecy does indeed mean that your rationality in that area is lacking. Science's method uses all forms of logic, If something isn't scientific them most likely it isn't logical. 3.His goal wasn't to point out the limitations of science or logic. You want Kurt Gödel for that. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Martin, Descartes was a believer in God all along. His first meditations were fairly reasonable but as he moved on, they become less and less logical and more and more like the arguments people like Pat Robertson spout. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Noclevername, nice work on the recent tweaks. You've done a very good job of keeping neutral wording, thanks. -- Minderbinder 12:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks to Martinphi for his additions. It's an ongoing process; for every unsupported opinion we trim off, two more grow in its place... Noclevername 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
http://www.parapsychology.org/ i just adde dth a ppage to this article. a it says that it is one of the official paraspychology internet influences and it hink that if this can be proved verifiabled then it can be a good research tool for compelteing this encyclopedic aritlce. Smith Jones 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to put this article in the pseudoscience category, please give a WP:V source for doing so. Let this post stand in for a citation request on the pseudoscience Cat in the article. If you find a good, NPOV source, I would also like to put it in the science Cat. This is because it is connected to parapsychology, which is a science. I can source that to Hyman, Randi, Alcock, and the AAAS. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
here is info by a methatmatican
some debate here on a sciecne discussionb oard (not sure it if ill be will accepted)
a books that you care to buy about skepticalism and psuedoscinece and even psychics too
oh, and not dyslexic i just typ3e in a hurry. i'll tr y to slow down but you could make an effort to understand me better. Smith Jones 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The theorectical underpinnings of psychics are not a science (like physics) but really on principles that according to the pseudoscience article, match a pseudoscience. I am inclined to sway to Noclevername's argument above though. Shot info 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This site [ [3]] appears to be a blog. As such it fails WP:EL and should be removed. Comments?
I took it out and put in the PA instead- in case Y'all didn't notice. Any objections? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Category:Purported psychics is not going to be changed to Category:Psychics. I prefer the second, for simplicity, but I share others' concerns that the latter name could imply that psychic powers actually exist. However, if we changed Wikipedia's definition of a psychic to "a person who claims to have the ability to produce psychic phenomena" (no italics, of course), it would then make sense to rename the category to Category:Psychics, as this would no longer imply a POV according to Wikipedia's definition of a psychic. Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that this definition is supported by at least one dictionary: Dictionary.com's Random House-based dictionary defines a psychic as "a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces; medium." Λυδαcιτγ 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The term psychic comes from the Greek word psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind).[1] It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher.[2] The word psychic is used in several ways. It can mean anyone who performs mentalist magic, or otherwise engages in performances traditionally labeled psychic. Or it can mean a person who is genuinely able to produce psi phenomena. It can also refer to the magical or psi phenomena themselves.
No, it doesn't say it is genuine. That is not true. It says what the definition of the word is. Then later it says that some people think there is no such thing. That is both accurate and NPOV, whereas defining a psychic as anyone who says they are psychic is POV and not accurate. As far as bigfoot and Jesus etc., I tried to define psychics according to the PA, which is the same as saying that "According to Christians, Jesus is the Son of God," which is true and NPOV. But you reverted me on that. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented Martin's suggestion of using both definitions, though I combined them into one sentence: "as a noun, the word means a person who can or who claims to be able to produce psi phenomena." This would still allow the simple category. Λυδαcιτγ 22:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Audacity's new version is an improvement, but it still looks like the cat is going to stay "purported psychics". If it would help I could dig up some references of skeptics who don't believe in psychics but still use the term psychic or medium to refer to them. Puddytang 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"As an adjective, psychic refers to events which involve psi. As a noun, a psychic is a person who can produce psi phenomena,[3][4][5][2] or who claims to be able to do so.[6]" Better? Λυδαcιτγ 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
We need to make a clear distinction between the two meanings: magic tricks, which are called psychic, and the real phenomenon. The version I had was clear, and it should be either kept that way, or the dual version eliminated. Otherwise, it leaves the reader wondering, "So if I say I'm a psychic I am one?" It needs to be explained that the term can mean a magician.
Martinphi (
Talk Ψ
Contribs)
23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The basic reasons we stray from them is that, first those definitions say something different from what they mean. For instance, if a person were psychic, but no one thought they were psychic, they would not be psychic under the definition "people thought to be psychic". Same with "appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy." Same with "Supposed," etc. etc. These definitions are meant to be read as simply casting doubt on the subject, but actually say something quite different.
Second, we stray from it because to so define it is POV. We should not decide whether the phenomena exist or not. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain again why these definitions are not acceptable?
LuckyLouie 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
They are not "apparently inexplicable" but rather "not apparently explicable." And, the quote LL gave is "people thought to be psychic synonyms : clairvoyant, telepathic, telekinetic, spiritualistic." There isn't any "refers to" in there. And I have no problem with the current definition here. Am I understanding what you said right? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree that everyone seems to have their own preferred version, but I don't think that ignoring the Random House and Dictionary of Psychology definitions is at all the popular consensus. Λυδαcιτγ 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Starting with the current version, we could go with something like "As a noun, the term psychic refers to a person who is said to be able to produce psychic phenomena". I'm open to suggestion, and the dictionary defs that have been mentioned here all seem like an improvement. So what do people like? Based on Martinphi's insistence that dictionaries and encyclopedias are "demonstrably wrong" I suspect we may have to settle for a consensus that he's not entirely happy with. Suggestions? -- Minderbinder 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This the wording I suggest. It's based on The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English Lucky Louie quoted:
Psychic is a term relating to or denoting mental abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws since they seem to transcend the confines of one's brain. People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics".
-- Nealparr ( yell at me| for what i've done) 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So the way I would word the first paragraph is like this (adding sources where necessary):
Psychic is a term relating to or denoting mental abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws since they seem to transcend the confines of one's brain. People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics". The term comes from the Greek word psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind). It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion (1842 – 1925), who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher.
(I'd drop the medium part to one of the subsections below as it's not really relevant to the opening statements. Instead I'd put it in a section on psychics in pop culture. The reason being that the term "medium" these days is a self-label used by psychics who want to distance themselves from the negative connotations of the word psychic.)
-- Nealparr ( yell at me| for what i've done) 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this new version, it's pathetic (brain?) and it is apparently plagarazied from anther source. New versions should be discussed on the talk page and a consensus should be reached before making such a major change.
Dreadlocke
☥
01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Allegedly" doesn't enter into it. They can "allege" all they want, that doesn't make them psychic. Furthermore it's against WP:WTA Dreadlocke ☥ 02:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, don't hold anything back, tell me how you really feel. Lame and pathetic? I was just shooting for lame. Definitions are supposed to state fact, not be sensational. The problem with the original version is that it said "Psychics are people who have psychic abilities". That doesn't make much sense when you consider that we never established what psychic abilities are. It's like saying that an apple is an object that has appleness, instead of saying that an apple is a fruit that is red and juicy. You must first establish what psychic is before you can say a psychic is someone who has psychicness. Here we are saying that psychic means that it transcends one's brain, which is where thoughts are supposed to be according to traditional science. If it's pathetic and lame to say that, um, alright, but where do you get that it's stolen or plagarized? I said specifically that it's based on The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English and that my suggestion should contain appropriate sourcing.
Alright, hopefully we can get past my misconception about copy/paste (I've struck it all out). My objection is to the word "brain". Perhaps if we added something along the lines of the known physical senses, and deduction from previous experience. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this:
Psychic is a term relating to or denoting mental abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws since they seem to transcend the confines of the known physical senses and any deduction from previous experience. People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics".
I also think there may be some salvagable material in the current version, such as:
The word psychic is derived from the Greek psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind). [1] It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher. [2]. The term is often used interchangeably with medium. [3]
Thoughts? Dreadlocke ☥ 04:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
From my understanding, if even one editor disputes an issue, there is no consensus. Please have an admin or some neutral third-party comment. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Came here from the RfC page, so hopefully I'm a neutral third party. I'd strongly recommend just using the exact definition from the dictionary you're almost quoting, then adding a citation. It seems like that would be a reasonable compromise, and it would greatly help to stabilize the introduction because you could generate consensus here for that specific, citable version. Just my 2 cents. Good luck. Gnixon 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So now that we have a new version, can we remove the disputed tag from the first section? Dreadlocke ☥ 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Where should this be then? It shouldn't just disappear, as that would violate NPOV. -- Fyslee/ talk 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is already in there (see below). And why would you be concerned about the skeptical part, and not about the parapsychology part?
From the article:
Everybody is capable of using phsycic abilities. There are guides in everything from books to websites on using mental abilities to semmingly-paranormal things mentally. I have proven this by practicing clairvoyance to an, if very limited(I only recently started practicing.), working extent. This said, I can never win a debate, so if anyone starts one I will not idulge without rock-hard evidence. (I put this here because it implies that only a handful of people are cabable of ESP,clairvoyance,etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandonrc2 ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
this shows that a lot of people do think that the everyone can be a psychic, so it should be icnldued in the artilce since there is common consesus in the parapsychological peoples studies that show that this must be true to some people. Smith Jones 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Did that one note really cause all this debate?!?!(Sorry about forgetting to sign, i'm not used to using a wiki.)( Brandonrc2 03:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC))
'There has also been a free manual posted at [4] claiming[...]' The website is currently down. I propose removing the sentence if the website is persistently unavailable. Jimmy pickles 10:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello I saw request for comments. Is there some idea to comment on here, yet?
1garden 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for delay! I am involved in other article that too long! but I come back soon.
212.29.211.18 09:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
"As a noun, the word psychic means a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena." As written, this makes it sound like WP is saying that there are people with the ability to produce psychic phenomena. Without a reliable source backing it up, WP can't say that, it's POV. Including a qualifier or putting it together with the following sentence would help, but as it stands, right now it's POV. -- Milo H Minderbinder 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think of it this way, because when it says "the word psychic means," it is just defining the word. It is like saying "The word pencil means a stick of carbon inside a piece of wood which you can write with." Then, if pencils were pseudoscience (or if a lot of people though so), couldn't we just go on to say "But some people think pencils don't exist"? The reason I think this is OK is that it is only a definition of the word. Don't you think? Myriam Tobias 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"Writers might consider this appropriate where they are trying to indicate a close relationship between two sentences" Precisely, Milo. And it is not the job of Wikipedia to say how closely skepticism about a thing relates to the thing itself. It is merely the job of Wikipedia to present both things. To use the semicolon is to introduce bias, and is therefore not NPOV. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the whole paragraph should be re-written? It looks pretty good the way it is, with a period. But maybe the skeptical part should have its own paragraph, and it should talk about cold reading? Myriam Tobias 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I messed up somebody's edit. It said "Edit conflict" and I put it from the bottom screen to the top one because it was back again the way it used to be. Myriam Tobias 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"So are you saying the definition shouldn't mention the existence/non-existence/dispute whatever at all?" I like to just define a word. Then say that there are objections to the phenomenon being real. I think we should fully explicate both sides. The only thing I really object to here is not seperating out the different thoughts. The definition, the pro, and the con should each have their own sentences or paragraphs. No mixing. The current version is fine.
I just want to say there is no evidence to suggest that it is a mythical creature. it is controversial, not impossible. there is hypothesis and theory as to whether it is possible that people can tap into psychic abilities or develop psychic abilities. there are people who believe and people who don't. Do we need it explained that there may be a god, it hasn't been proven outright, but neither has it been 100% proven that god doesn't exist. do we call god a mythical creature. I think it should be considered simply as a given, that you either believe it is possible or that it isn't.
This section is unsourced, notes that it is an under-researched topic, and is leaning towards being a how-to guide for a highly fringe topic. It's simply not very encyclopedic as it is. I would suggest removing it outright, though for now I've simply tagged it with {{ unsourced}} -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Smith Jones added "who claims" to this, and I think a qualifier makes sense. If you look at the history of this page, until Martin's recent push to go "qualifier free" the definition included the word "purported". I don't think this is POV at all, there are many articles on WP about subjects with an unproven existence that use similar wording. Is there support for "purported" or similar? This could certainly be a way to solve the lingering Semicolon Issue. -- Milo H Minderbinder 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[2]. I do not know. -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Consumed Crustacean, I think the first paragraph is very clear that this is only defining the word. And now there is a whole paragraph saying what skeptics think, and what parapsychologists think. Is that ok? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The term psychic comes from the Greek psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind).[1] It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher.[2] According to XXX the word means a person who can allegedly produce psi phenomena.(source saying that psychics are alleged to have paranormal powers) However, others believe that psychics may have the powers they claim. According to XXX, a psychic is a person who can produce psi phenomena.(source saying that a psychic is one who has paranormal powers- I can provide one) The term is often used interchangeably with medium, although many psychics attribute abilities they may have to ESP or clairvoyance rather than to contact with spirits.[2]
In this lead, we come right out and have it both ways. Of course, someone is going to insert "allegedly" in the second sentence also, but it will be far less easy to defend that change. This is a very clumsy way of doing it, but it at least makes the reader aware of the issues- it isn't just weasel-worded. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. "Psychic" means a certain thing. Whether it exists or not is in dispute. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
i decided to wanting ato sepereate that external liinks between "Pro-psyhcic" and "anti-psychic" websites and i wanted to get consensus before i getyellwed at again for "Vandalism". who else things that this is a good idea, and whowants to help me make it happen? Smith Jones 01:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The last discussion of this got sidetracked, so back on topic: does anyone else think the definition needs a qualifier of some sort (whatever we can agree is most neutral)? Right now we have "the word means a person who can produce psi phenomena" which seems to define the term as something that exists as opposed to something unproven to exist. I can't see that as NPOV or factually accurate based on the sources (and sorry, I don't consider the Parapsychological Association to be enough of an authority for WP to declare that it exists). Opinions? -- Milo H Minderbinder 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, the current version is: "As an adjective, the term psychic means any event which involves psi; as a noun, the word means a person who can produce psi phenomena."
I'd propose something along the lines of: "As an adjective, the term psychic means any event which purportedly involves psi; as a noun, the word means a person who can purportedly produce psi phenomena." -- Milo H Minderbinder 13:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Martin. I think it is right to say that a psychic has powers. Then we can disagree over whether or not there are any psychics. Why is it not neutral to define a term as what it really means? It is only a word. The word has a meaning. Myriam Tobias 23:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've made a request for comment at the village pump to get some outside opinions. Thanks for the responses so far. -- Milo H Minderbinder 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Milo believes it is biased because it doesn't say that there may not be any psychics in the same sentence with the definition? Myriam Tobias 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that there is an effort to change the title of this article from 'Psychic' to 'Purported psychic'.
The term 'psychic' needs a qualifer no more that the term 'musician,' 'artist,' 'poet,' or 'athlete' does. I realize that there is some sensitivity about the issue of whether or not psychics are really skilled at anything having to do with the paranormal, but Wikipedia isn't going to decide that for anyone. Most people looking up the term are going to have their own ideas about the subject.
I don't believe that Jonathon Edwards is doing anything otherwordly on his show, but if somebody asked me who he was, I would say that he's a medium, and then I might go on to say something about the techniques he may or may not be employing on his show. If someone were to ask me who T.S. Elliot was, I wouldn't call him a self-styled poet, but I sure don't like his work. Do you see where I am going with this?
All of these efforts to put 'purported', 'alleged', 'ostensible', or 'supposed' in front of every sensitive term at Wikipedia has nothing to do with neutrality. It has to do with a minority of editors trying to impose their worldview on everybody else and it really needs to stop. -- Annalisa Ventola ( Talk | Contribs) 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion. Nobody has proposed renaming this article. The category was renamed [[:Category:Purported psychics]] per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8#Category:Psychics. -- Minderbinder 00:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is why- and don't patronize Annalisa. You guys are the ones who have to prove yourselves. You are making, with the category, the claim that all psychics are merely "purported." However, the category "Psychics" only directs one to the term, which is then defined, and debate mentioned. Thus, you have to prove your point:. You say that all psychics are purported: prove it.
Martinphi (
Talk Ψ
Contribs)
01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Psychic" isn't a claim?
That's a claim. So for a person to go in the category Psychic, we'd need verification that the person can actually produce psi phenomena. Do we have that proof for anyone? Purported makes a claim, but it's a claim easily proven. For example, John Edwards purports to be a psychic, we have proof of that on the front of his website. -- Minderbinder 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I see. But why was the Psychic put into that category? Ok, here is how it looks: Purported psychics is a sub-category of Parapsychology. So that seems fine, as the psychics are only purported. I thought it was basically categorizing the Psychic page into the general category Purported psychics- and that this put all psychic phenomena under "Purported." I have no idea why this page had that category put on it, as it hardly mentions any psychics. But I don't have a problem with with this particular change.
So, it was my mistake- but you could have saved the time by informing me of this change, before doing it.
I also don't see any need for the Psychic category, as Parapsychology does the job for that. WDM, do you agree? As long as Purported psychics are a sub category of parapsychology? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
When I say "list of psychics" I'm referring to [[Category:Purported psychics]]. I don't know why "psychic" is in the category of "purported psychics" either. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes but the category is called "purported psychics". Why is the "psychic" article in that category? Is the psychic article a purported psychic? Wikidudeman (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, Milo, are you saying that categories are immune from the need to have citations? What I mean is, you aparently think that "Psychic" is pseudoscience (although "psychic" isn't a science). So basically what you're saying is that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Unless categories do not need any citation, could you give me a WP:V source for that, which is not contradicted by an even more WP:V source, such as the AAAS, Alcock, Randi, or Hyman? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean, psychic phenomena is linked to parapsychology, and parapsychology is pseudoscience? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Like we agreed above, in the dispute over "Supposed psychics," this page is about "Psychic," not particular loonies on TV. These are fakes, probably, and are not psychic. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, there are two things: the first one is, "psychic" is not itself a science. But, if we are talking about science done on psychic abilities, then that is parapsychology- are you calling that pseudoscience? I think the connection WDM is making with TV persons, is very loose. But you could make it. I think that is something of an answer to my original question, as to just how this article is connected to pseudoscience: it is connected by the psychic abilities being claimed by pseudoscientists such as those on TV. I only wish the connection were much more clear, however. The connection is not in the article -unless we do a culture section which makes the connection to the claim of "science" of the charlatans- but in the reader's mind only. I doubt that is enough to justify the category. But at least it is a reason. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Finding other opinion results for the level of belief or non-belief among the general public? That one poll result has been hanging out there by itself for a long time, and it's starting to get awfully lonely...
(Just remember to make sure whatever's added is cited and reliable; not that polls are really an accurate representation of everybody's opinions, since most people choose not to answer them, but it's the best source of info available.) Noclevername 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Critical thinking is taught in what "writing" classes"? 2.Explain how bible prophecy is rational. 3.Descarte's questioning was nothing more than an argument for the existence of a God. Read his meditations. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this discussion, however interesting, pertains to polls or to the article in general (see WP:TALK), so consider this a friendly encouragement to take it to email. =) — Elembis ( talk) 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
NealParr, 1.I don't believe that current writing classes teach the critical thinking that I'm talking about. 2.Being "open" to something as absurd to bible prophecy does indeed mean that your rationality in that area is lacking. Science's method uses all forms of logic, If something isn't scientific them most likely it isn't logical. 3.His goal wasn't to point out the limitations of science or logic. You want Kurt Gödel for that. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Martin, Descartes was a believer in God all along. His first meditations were fairly reasonable but as he moved on, they become less and less logical and more and more like the arguments people like Pat Robertson spout. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Noclevername, nice work on the recent tweaks. You've done a very good job of keeping neutral wording, thanks. -- Minderbinder 12:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks to Martinphi for his additions. It's an ongoing process; for every unsupported opinion we trim off, two more grow in its place... Noclevername 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
http://www.parapsychology.org/ i just adde dth a ppage to this article. a it says that it is one of the official paraspychology internet influences and it hink that if this can be proved verifiabled then it can be a good research tool for compelteing this encyclopedic aritlce. Smith Jones 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to put this article in the pseudoscience category, please give a WP:V source for doing so. Let this post stand in for a citation request on the pseudoscience Cat in the article. If you find a good, NPOV source, I would also like to put it in the science Cat. This is because it is connected to parapsychology, which is a science. I can source that to Hyman, Randi, Alcock, and the AAAS. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
here is info by a methatmatican
some debate here on a sciecne discussionb oard (not sure it if ill be will accepted)
a books that you care to buy about skepticalism and psuedoscinece and even psychics too
oh, and not dyslexic i just typ3e in a hurry. i'll tr y to slow down but you could make an effort to understand me better. Smith Jones 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The theorectical underpinnings of psychics are not a science (like physics) but really on principles that according to the pseudoscience article, match a pseudoscience. I am inclined to sway to Noclevername's argument above though. Shot info 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This site [ [3]] appears to be a blog. As such it fails WP:EL and should be removed. Comments?
I took it out and put in the PA instead- in case Y'all didn't notice. Any objections? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Category:Purported psychics is not going to be changed to Category:Psychics. I prefer the second, for simplicity, but I share others' concerns that the latter name could imply that psychic powers actually exist. However, if we changed Wikipedia's definition of a psychic to "a person who claims to have the ability to produce psychic phenomena" (no italics, of course), it would then make sense to rename the category to Category:Psychics, as this would no longer imply a POV according to Wikipedia's definition of a psychic. Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that this definition is supported by at least one dictionary: Dictionary.com's Random House-based dictionary defines a psychic as "a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces; medium." Λυδαcιτγ 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The term psychic comes from the Greek word psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind).[1] It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher.[2] The word psychic is used in several ways. It can mean anyone who performs mentalist magic, or otherwise engages in performances traditionally labeled psychic. Or it can mean a person who is genuinely able to produce psi phenomena. It can also refer to the magical or psi phenomena themselves.
No, it doesn't say it is genuine. That is not true. It says what the definition of the word is. Then later it says that some people think there is no such thing. That is both accurate and NPOV, whereas defining a psychic as anyone who says they are psychic is POV and not accurate. As far as bigfoot and Jesus etc., I tried to define psychics according to the PA, which is the same as saying that "According to Christians, Jesus is the Son of God," which is true and NPOV. But you reverted me on that. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented Martin's suggestion of using both definitions, though I combined them into one sentence: "as a noun, the word means a person who can or who claims to be able to produce psi phenomena." This would still allow the simple category. Λυδαcιτγ 22:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Audacity's new version is an improvement, but it still looks like the cat is going to stay "purported psychics". If it would help I could dig up some references of skeptics who don't believe in psychics but still use the term psychic or medium to refer to them. Puddytang 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"As an adjective, psychic refers to events which involve psi. As a noun, a psychic is a person who can produce psi phenomena,[3][4][5][2] or who claims to be able to do so.[6]" Better? Λυδαcιτγ 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
We need to make a clear distinction between the two meanings: magic tricks, which are called psychic, and the real phenomenon. The version I had was clear, and it should be either kept that way, or the dual version eliminated. Otherwise, it leaves the reader wondering, "So if I say I'm a psychic I am one?" It needs to be explained that the term can mean a magician.
Martinphi (
Talk Ψ
Contribs)
23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The basic reasons we stray from them is that, first those definitions say something different from what they mean. For instance, if a person were psychic, but no one thought they were psychic, they would not be psychic under the definition "people thought to be psychic". Same with "appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy." Same with "Supposed," etc. etc. These definitions are meant to be read as simply casting doubt on the subject, but actually say something quite different.
Second, we stray from it because to so define it is POV. We should not decide whether the phenomena exist or not. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain again why these definitions are not acceptable?
LuckyLouie 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
They are not "apparently inexplicable" but rather "not apparently explicable." And, the quote LL gave is "people thought to be psychic synonyms : clairvoyant, telepathic, telekinetic, spiritualistic." There isn't any "refers to" in there. And I have no problem with the current definition here. Am I understanding what you said right? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree that everyone seems to have their own preferred version, but I don't think that ignoring the Random House and Dictionary of Psychology definitions is at all the popular consensus. Λυδαcιτγ 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Starting with the current version, we could go with something like "As a noun, the term psychic refers to a person who is said to be able to produce psychic phenomena". I'm open to suggestion, and the dictionary defs that have been mentioned here all seem like an improvement. So what do people like? Based on Martinphi's insistence that dictionaries and encyclopedias are "demonstrably wrong" I suspect we may have to settle for a consensus that he's not entirely happy with. Suggestions? -- Minderbinder 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This the wording I suggest. It's based on The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English Lucky Louie quoted:
Psychic is a term relating to or denoting mental abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws since they seem to transcend the confines of one's brain. People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics".
-- Nealparr ( yell at me| for what i've done) 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So the way I would word the first paragraph is like this (adding sources where necessary):
Psychic is a term relating to or denoting mental abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws since they seem to transcend the confines of one's brain. People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics". The term comes from the Greek word psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind). It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion (1842 – 1925), who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher.
(I'd drop the medium part to one of the subsections below as it's not really relevant to the opening statements. Instead I'd put it in a section on psychics in pop culture. The reason being that the term "medium" these days is a self-label used by psychics who want to distance themselves from the negative connotations of the word psychic.)
-- Nealparr ( yell at me| for what i've done) 09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this new version, it's pathetic (brain?) and it is apparently plagarazied from anther source. New versions should be discussed on the talk page and a consensus should be reached before making such a major change.
Dreadlocke
☥
01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Allegedly" doesn't enter into it. They can "allege" all they want, that doesn't make them psychic. Furthermore it's against WP:WTA Dreadlocke ☥ 02:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, don't hold anything back, tell me how you really feel. Lame and pathetic? I was just shooting for lame. Definitions are supposed to state fact, not be sensational. The problem with the original version is that it said "Psychics are people who have psychic abilities". That doesn't make much sense when you consider that we never established what psychic abilities are. It's like saying that an apple is an object that has appleness, instead of saying that an apple is a fruit that is red and juicy. You must first establish what psychic is before you can say a psychic is someone who has psychicness. Here we are saying that psychic means that it transcends one's brain, which is where thoughts are supposed to be according to traditional science. If it's pathetic and lame to say that, um, alright, but where do you get that it's stolen or plagarized? I said specifically that it's based on The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English and that my suggestion should contain appropriate sourcing.
Alright, hopefully we can get past my misconception about copy/paste (I've struck it all out). My objection is to the word "brain". Perhaps if we added something along the lines of the known physical senses, and deduction from previous experience. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this:
Psychic is a term relating to or denoting mental abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws since they seem to transcend the confines of the known physical senses and any deduction from previous experience. People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics".
I also think there may be some salvagable material in the current version, such as:
The word psychic is derived from the Greek psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind). [1] It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher. [2]. The term is often used interchangeably with medium. [3]
Thoughts? Dreadlocke ☥ 04:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
From my understanding, if even one editor disputes an issue, there is no consensus. Please have an admin or some neutral third-party comment. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Came here from the RfC page, so hopefully I'm a neutral third party. I'd strongly recommend just using the exact definition from the dictionary you're almost quoting, then adding a citation. It seems like that would be a reasonable compromise, and it would greatly help to stabilize the introduction because you could generate consensus here for that specific, citable version. Just my 2 cents. Good luck. Gnixon 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So now that we have a new version, can we remove the disputed tag from the first section? Dreadlocke ☥ 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Where should this be then? It shouldn't just disappear, as that would violate NPOV. -- Fyslee/ talk 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is already in there (see below). And why would you be concerned about the skeptical part, and not about the parapsychology part?
From the article:
Everybody is capable of using phsycic abilities. There are guides in everything from books to websites on using mental abilities to semmingly-paranormal things mentally. I have proven this by practicing clairvoyance to an, if very limited(I only recently started practicing.), working extent. This said, I can never win a debate, so if anyone starts one I will not idulge without rock-hard evidence. (I put this here because it implies that only a handful of people are cabable of ESP,clairvoyance,etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandonrc2 ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
this shows that a lot of people do think that the everyone can be a psychic, so it should be icnldued in the artilce since there is common consesus in the parapsychological peoples studies that show that this must be true to some people. Smith Jones 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Did that one note really cause all this debate?!?!(Sorry about forgetting to sign, i'm not used to using a wiki.)( Brandonrc2 03:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC))
'There has also been a free manual posted at [4] claiming[...]' The website is currently down. I propose removing the sentence if the website is persistently unavailable. Jimmy pickles 10:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello I saw request for comments. Is there some idea to comment on here, yet?
1garden 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for delay! I am involved in other article that too long! but I come back soon.
212.29.211.18 09:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)