This page 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 9 has been created with a link at right. Archive 10, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 10" (same as creating an article). For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. There are also Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page on my User page for the beginner. (Please retain this notice, as it is mentioned in the Wiki talk page how-to article.) 5Q5 ( talk) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add the following peer-reviewed journal archive link to "External links" or "Published Papers on PK / TK" (which one would be best?). There are many articles concerning PK, usually using politically correct (and creative) cover terms such as "Operator-Related Anomalies," "Influence of Intention," "Anomalous Human-Machine Interaction," "Physical Interpretation of Very Small Concentrations," and so on. 5Q5 ( talk) 17:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor on 10 May 2010 in this edit changed the name of Russian researcher Alexander N. Aksakof to Alexander N. Aksakov in the line attributing the coining of the word telekinesis in the Terminology/Early History section. This, I suppose, needs additional verification if possible on what the Russian-to-English spelling translation actually is. It seems like a reasonable correction to me, as "Aksakov" is more in line with Russian spelled names, but the source material does spell it with an "f." I just wanted to mention this here in case anyone can comment. Unfortunately, Google isn't too helpful because many websites have used the Wikipedia page with "f" in the writing of their articles. 5Q5 ( talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The meta-analysis referenced in the third para (Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators--A meta-analysis) has been responded to in another paper, which points out various problems with the analysis. As the conclusions of the original paper are disputed on several grounds, it probably should not be given such a prominent position in this article, at least until the criticisms are shown to be invalid.
Alternatively, the response could be referenced also. It can be found here: deprecated source?
Thoughts anyone?
Bazmatic ( talk) 05:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a purge of [[[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. This includes Randi's email newsletter, books published through iUniverse, and personal web sites. These are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia's definition. MartinPoulter ( talk) 10:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
(Settled: the consensus among participating editors was to shorten the section in favor of proposed revision #2.)
Delete to proposed revision #2. I'd like to delete/revise the material below from the popular culture section. Some of it is mine and some other editors (an editor recently readded Charmed w/mispelling). These can all be found on the offsite Hollywood/former Wiki pop culture list via the external link. Having these in the article just keeps inciting the public to add more examples. Long-time editors here know we have been through this before on previous talk pages. Please add your input: Keep or Delete. 5Q5 ( talk) 15:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
PROPOSED DELETION:
Numerous characters have the ability to control the movement of objects using "the Force" in the Star Wars canon. The character Prue from 1998 supenrnatural drama Charmed exibited powerful telekinesis. In the 1988 anime movie Akira, a few of the main characters use telekinesis throughout the film. In the 2009 film PUSH and the subsequent DC Comics series, the "Mover" characters Nick Grant and Victor Budarin display a very advanced mastery of telekinesis. Also in 2009, the U.S. soldier character Lyn Cassady portrayed by actor George Clooney was able to stop a goat's heart using psychic powers in the feature film The Men Who Stare at Goats, inspired by the book of the same title. Also in the Sonic the Hedgehog, one of the characters, Silver the Hedgehog has psychokinetic powers to destroy enemies. There are many Pokemon that practice telekinesis. Most of these Psychic-type Pokemon, and they have telekinesis-inspired moves such as Psychic and Confusion. Notable examples of such Pokemon include Mewtwo, Alakazam, Jirachi, Metagross, and Gardevoir. In the Mortal Kombat Series, the character Ermac has telekineses.
In the television series Heroes (2006–2010), the serial killer Sylar, portrayed by actor Zachary Quinto, frequently exhibited telekinetic ability.
The comic book character Jean Grey of the X-Men exhibits extremely powerful telekinetic ability.
PROPOSED REVISION #1 (another is below):
Psychokinesis has been an aspect in movies, television, computer games, literature, and other forms of popular culture. An early example in literature is the 1952 novella Telek by Jack Vance. In the 1976 film Carrie, based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, Sissy Spacek portrayed a troubled high school student with telekinetic powers. She was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress, the first psychokinetic character portrayal in a film ever to be so recognized ( Ellen Burstyn was the second, in 1980's healer-themed film Resurrection). Psychokinesis is also commonly used as a power in a large number of videogames and role playing games.
Here is my new proposed revision. As for adding a public domain painting, I had one of Jesus performing PK with the raising of Lazarusyears ago, but editors took it out because there was no specific reference to "psychokinesis." As for re-including a video game example, I say only if it is the most famous example that can be found; otherwise, here we go again, everyone will be adding their favorites. 5Q5 ( talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
PROPOSED REVISION #2:
Psychokinesis has been an aspect in movies, television, computer games, literature, and other forms of popular culture. An early example is the 1952 novella Telek by Jack Vance. Notable portrayals of psychokinetic characters include Sissy Spacek as a troubled high school student in the 1976 film Carrie, based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, and Ellen Burstyn in 1980's Resurrection. 1 2 Psychokinesis is also commonly used as a power in a large number of videogames and role playing games.
Discuss: Should we add the late North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to the list of notable PK claimants? Apparently the official line was that he could control the weather. This is also mentioned, both with different references, in his Wiki bio and the North Korea article. I have also come up with these high quality supporting refs: MSNBC, Dec 22, 1011 "In life, he was extolled by North Korea's fawning media with feats like a miraculous ability to control the weather and several holes-in-one on the golf course. and The Telegraph Dec 28, 2011 "He reportedly spread the myth across North Korea that he could control the weather with his moods, as if by magic.". Probably other refs out there. I've seen some that say it is in his official biography and that North Koreans are taught it in school. We could also add his photo from his bio. I think it would be an interesting addition. Thoughts? 5Q5 ( talk) 18:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's terrible. How about this? And shift the references into the body somehow. Mcewan ( talk) 23:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Psychokinesis (from the Greek ψυχή, "psyche" (mind) and κίνησις, "kinesis", (movement)), [1] [2] [3] is a term coined by publisher Henry Holt [4] to refer to the influence of mind on an object that cannot be accounted for by the mediation of any known physical energy. [5] Examples of psychokinesis could include distorting or moving an object, [6] and influencing the output of a random number generator. [5] [7] [8]
Most scientists believe that the existence of psychokinesis has not been convincingly demonstrated. [9] A meta-analysis of 380 studies in 2006 found a "very small" effect which could possibly be explained by publication bias. [10] PK experiments have historically been criticised for lack of proper controls and repeatability [11] [12] [13] and some experiments have created illusions of PK where none exists as a result of the subject's prior belief in PK. [14] [15]
Some parapsychology researchers claim psychokinesis exists and deserves further study, including recent attempts to influence random number generators. [16] [17] [10] [18]
psycho-, a combining form representing psyche in compound words. ... (Gk, comb. form of psyche breath, spirit, soul, mind; akin to psycheim to blow).
psycho. comb. form relating to the mind or psychology: ...from Greek psukhe breath, soul, mind.
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
Much of the work of the PEAR group has employed 'random event generators' (REGs), which are essentially electronic random number generators whose ' operators' are invited by dint [force, power] of their own intentionality, to bias in such a way, that the mean of the random number distribution would be either higher or lower than it would be in the absence of their intentional efforts...
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
[M]ost scientists, both psychologists and physicists, agree that it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated.
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Benassi1979
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
There are many problems with this article and I'll discuss a few that are problematic as an encyclopedia article. In the article, there are questions about whether or not it exists, but then makes statements about violating laws of physics or have a bias opinion that leads more towards an absolute. The second thing is that this article seems dated and requires a strong sense of revision. James Ramdi has had many individuals and groups, some very distinguished research organizations have been either declined their prize or ignored. Additionally, Speaking about James Randi is highly controversial as it's been suggested by many that he is only utilizing skepticism as a means to make more money. There's also a lack of documented evidence stating that it is in fact something that exists. There have been many universities, over a thousand that have published documentations that psionics or psychic abilities is indeed true to the given extent of their research. There's also a lot of controversy involving this because various news agencies have been caught stating differently than the results and evidence show that the research completed that were against the idea that some if not all humans may have psychic abilities are mostly if not all flawed. Again, this is very well documented. I mainly care to see that this article is revised into becoming a less bias and more scientific entry, rather than a "it doesn't exist but there are some people that say it does" kind of article. All of what I've been discussing can be Googled and found from reliable and well established research organizations and universities as well as independent researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.113.165 ( talk) 08:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The result was consensus to maintain the article in American English, with noted exceptions. 5Q5 ( talk) 13:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC) |
I am requesting a policy decision for this article as to whether it should be written in American English or British English. A number of UK-based editors have been gradually converting it to British English, changing spellings like "criticized" to "criticised" and moving periods to outside of end quotation marks (the latter may be allowed, see "No opinion" below). One unregistered UK editor recently added a flag to the top of the article indicating in that editor's opinion that the article needed copyediting for grammar, spelling, and style. The article was originally written and maintained in American English, so these conversions appear to violate WP:RETAIN. A language policy for this specific article will allow any editor to revert material contrary to the consensus language and avoid edit warring. The following allowed talk page straw poll to ascertain consensus is being conducted in accordance with WP:NOTVOTE.
Please state your preference opinion, American or British and add a reason.
This article is obviously biased. I've added references to a few scientific research experiments which legitimately indicate PK activity. I'll add more later.
COice6 (
talk) 05:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
COice6, I pasted the entire reference section in a text editor and then did a phrase search for "Foundations of Physics" and came up empty, so it would be a new source for the article and it looks like a good find. Seeing as how the journal has a physics Nobel laureate associated with it as editor-in-chief and others in the past on its editorial board, it definitely qualifies as a high-quality peer-reviewed source for Wikipedia content, even better than other references (like Dean Radin's book). The material of yours that was deleted by editor LuckyLouie is already covered and sourced in the article in other places, along with rebuttals by skeptics, so what you proposed to add is not controversial. I guess the problem was that, and I agree, being in a new subsection, you forgot to balance it with available opposing viewpoints. COice6, if you want to add your material below to the "PK experiment" subsection, I would support that, so long as the line I have added about the skeptics' position following your material is included. Other editors are free to tweak my line if they want.
5Q5 ( talk) 15:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This is an argument I don't believe you can win. Foundations of Physics is cited as a source in over 1,000 Wikipedia science articles (found by way of a Google search). Below is just a sampling. There were so many scientist biography articles I had to stop adding them early on. The "Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory" was retracted by the journal, as the WIkipedia article indicates.
Foundations of Physics cited in the folowing articles:
John Stewart Bell (Northern Irish physicist, and the originator of Bell's theorem),
Bell's spaceship paradox,
Bell's theorem,
Complementarity (physics),
Bifurcation theory,
Faraday constant,
Free will theorem,
Graviton,
David Hestenes (American theoretical physicist),
Basil Hiley (British quantum physicist ),
Interpretations of quantum mechanics,
Introduction to quantum mechanics,
Language of mathematics,
Many-worlds interpretation,
Mathematical universe hypothesis,
Matter wave,
Measurement problem,
Measurement in quantum mechanics,
Non-equilibrium thermodynamics,
Philosophy of mathematics,
Philosophy of physics,
Physical quantity,
Constantin Piron (Belgian physicist),
Principle of locality,
Quantum Bayesianism,
Quantum gate,
Quantum logic,
Quantum nonlocality,
Quantum potential,
Reality,
Ruggero Santilli (Italian-American physicist),
Speed of gravity,
Max Tegmark (Swedish-American cosmologist),
Temperature,
Theory of everything,
Timeline of quantum mechanics,
Anton Zeilinger (Austrian quantum physicist), any many more.
5Q5 (
talk) 19:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The editor AndyTheGrump has started an edit war concerning the material in the box below, even as he is being considered for a block on the Administrator's Noticeboard for edit warring elsewhere (the link given may need updating when a decision is reached). Rather than flag the material or start a discussion here, he just deletes a line that has been in the article by way of consensus for years. I am not going to play the edit war game with him, so I am therefore seeking consensus from other editors at large as to whether the quoted line in the source is adequate. Joe Nickell, the skeptical author of the book is clearly defining what thoughtography is for his readers. He is not passing judgement on anyone's claim of that ability. The author, Nickell, is just providing a definition of the term. Do you agree that the cited source is sufficient?
5Q5 ( talk) 18:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Re the claim "The editor AndyTheGrump has started an edit war", that is factually incorrect. 5Q5 made an edit. AndyTheGrump reverted it, which was proper vbehavior -- see WP:BRD. 5Q5 reverted, thus starting an edit war, which was wrong. AndyTheGrump then reverted, thus continuing an edit war, which was wrong. And now that you are discussing it (as you both should have done in the D of BRD) I am seeing comments about the other editor (bad),along with comments about article content and sourcing (good). You have both been around long enough to know better. Please discuss what the content of the article should be and whether there are sources for your preferred version, and please do so calmly, rationally, and without talking about other editors. In other words, more light and less heat, please. -- Guy Macon ( talk)
Timeline:
Encyclopedia of Hoaxes
by Gordon Stein
Gale Group (1993)
ISBN
978-0810384149
5Q5 (
talk) 15:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I have flagged the Nensha article at top for additional citations needed. Apparently the word is real, but as part of a UK publisher's 1931 Japanese-to-English translation for a book title. As I explain in a post on the talk page there in the topic Nensha?, it is unclear yet (to me) whether Nensha specifically refers to a psychic impression on photographs or other objects and creatures as well, like maybe making a doll haunted. I would like to propose the following changes to the PK article:
These changes I am proposing would resolve this topic discussion as far as I'm concerned. Okay? 5Q5 ( talk) 15:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, great, another long post from me, sorry. Perhaps it's because in real life, I'm a professional writer with etymology (word origin) credentials and this particular topic is important to me. The purpose of the discussion in 2007 about the "Types" section was to set a referencing standard that required a source to refer to the ability listed as being under the umbrella of psychokinesis and that a source must be from a nonfiction work; in other words, you could not directly use a Stephen King novel like Carrie or Marvel comic book as a reference for telekinesis, but you could use a serious analysis book like The Physics of Superheroes. Now, on to something else. I am once again curious about your reasoning for rejecting my Joe Nickell reference. I highlighted and pasted the entire text from the official guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources into a .txt file and then did a word search for "context" as in your use of the phrase implying that I "ignored the context that the source places "thoughtography" in." I then searched for "relevant" and "relevance." I then did the same thing for the official guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Results: the words "context," "relevant," and "relevance" are not on any of the pages. Respectfully, can you please point to an official policy or guideline that you are referring to as your justification for the rejection? The "Terms" section is not the "Belief" section, not the "Scientific view" section, etc. It is strictly to establish that the abilities listed are in the lexicon under the greater term of PK and references there only need to prove that. Maybe there is some official policy or guideline out there, but I can't find it. I didn't bother to check essays or how-to guides (aka how-to essays), as they are unofficial and cannot be used to force an action. The still unexplained deleted line simply says, for terminological purposes, that thought images placed on film are described as thoughtography. The line in author Joe Nickell's book matches that description using similar language. It is part of the author's introduction for the reader so that they will understand the terminology being used as he then goes on to present his opinion about a particular claimant of the ability that he just defined. WP policy seems to merely state that a source must verify what is written in the article. For a reference used only in the "Terms" section, how has this not occurred using Nickell's definition of thoughtography? I could see your point if it was being used in other sections discussing the pros and cons of claimants or the alleged science, but not good enough just to document the existence of the term? Thanks. PS. the editor Martinphi has been the only one to date to give me a barnstar for my over seven years of hard work on this article. Unfortunately, since that 2007 award, he has been blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely for reasons I have not looked into. Perhaps if I had chosen a different article in the beginning, my luck would have been better and I would have had a less stressful existence on Wikipedia. Thanks, again. Now signing off. 5Q5 ( talk) 17:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Mann Jess for their recent edits to the article as seen in this version. It's a much improved article that now conforms to WP:FRINGE policies. I've edited some of the photo captions to help bring them in line with policy, but in particular, I'm not sure "File:Telequinesis o Telequinesia.ogg" adds anything to the article, as it seems to portray some kind of pseudoscientific fantasy "where the influence (or energy) projected from the magician to the apples is represented by a light." LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
As one of the hard-working, under-appreciated editors who has actually done contributory work on the psychokinesis article in the way of text and all the photographs over the past seven years and sourced a large number of accompanying references, due to the massive revisions done by the editor
Jess (aka
Mann jess) and supported without hesitation by the editor
LuckyLouie, without considering seeking consensus first in consideration of all the other editors who have worked on it all those years, I can no longer verfify that the references in the article match its content. This article is finished as far as I'm concerned, has been taken over by biased editors, and I will no longer work on it, monitor it, or even archive its talk page as I have also done all those years (I expect this post to soon disappear in a vengeful archiving edit). If it were allowed, I would seek consensus to have every single contribution I have ever made to the article removed and push it back to the stone age of minimal content. Thank you for proving once again why some news organizations
forbid the use of Wikipedia as a source due to its unreliability. My conratulations also to the many IP address sock puppets and
organized closed-minded skeptic-gangs (and
here) working this article. I am removing the bookmarks for the history logs of this article and talk page from my browser. Another professional writer and 15-year open-minded published member of a skeptics organization in the real world volunteering to try to improve Wikipedia bites the dust. Don't hesitate, add your insults and snide good riddance remarks below, perhaps via sock puppets to maintain hit and run anonymity. Good bye.
5Q5 (
talk) 20:39, 28 November 2013 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
This page 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 9 has been created with a link at right. Archive 10, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage titled "Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 10" (same as creating an article). For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. There are also Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page on my User page for the beginner. (Please retain this notice, as it is mentioned in the Wiki talk page how-to article.) 5Q5 ( talk) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add the following peer-reviewed journal archive link to "External links" or "Published Papers on PK / TK" (which one would be best?). There are many articles concerning PK, usually using politically correct (and creative) cover terms such as "Operator-Related Anomalies," "Influence of Intention," "Anomalous Human-Machine Interaction," "Physical Interpretation of Very Small Concentrations," and so on. 5Q5 ( talk) 17:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor on 10 May 2010 in this edit changed the name of Russian researcher Alexander N. Aksakof to Alexander N. Aksakov in the line attributing the coining of the word telekinesis in the Terminology/Early History section. This, I suppose, needs additional verification if possible on what the Russian-to-English spelling translation actually is. It seems like a reasonable correction to me, as "Aksakov" is more in line with Russian spelled names, but the source material does spell it with an "f." I just wanted to mention this here in case anyone can comment. Unfortunately, Google isn't too helpful because many websites have used the Wikipedia page with "f" in the writing of their articles. 5Q5 ( talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The meta-analysis referenced in the third para (Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators--A meta-analysis) has been responded to in another paper, which points out various problems with the analysis. As the conclusions of the original paper are disputed on several grounds, it probably should not be given such a prominent position in this article, at least until the criticisms are shown to be invalid.
Alternatively, the response could be referenced also. It can be found here: deprecated source?
Thoughts anyone?
Bazmatic ( talk) 05:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a purge of [[[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. This includes Randi's email newsletter, books published through iUniverse, and personal web sites. These are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia's definition. MartinPoulter ( talk) 10:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
(Settled: the consensus among participating editors was to shorten the section in favor of proposed revision #2.)
Delete to proposed revision #2. I'd like to delete/revise the material below from the popular culture section. Some of it is mine and some other editors (an editor recently readded Charmed w/mispelling). These can all be found on the offsite Hollywood/former Wiki pop culture list via the external link. Having these in the article just keeps inciting the public to add more examples. Long-time editors here know we have been through this before on previous talk pages. Please add your input: Keep or Delete. 5Q5 ( talk) 15:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
PROPOSED DELETION:
Numerous characters have the ability to control the movement of objects using "the Force" in the Star Wars canon. The character Prue from 1998 supenrnatural drama Charmed exibited powerful telekinesis. In the 1988 anime movie Akira, a few of the main characters use telekinesis throughout the film. In the 2009 film PUSH and the subsequent DC Comics series, the "Mover" characters Nick Grant and Victor Budarin display a very advanced mastery of telekinesis. Also in 2009, the U.S. soldier character Lyn Cassady portrayed by actor George Clooney was able to stop a goat's heart using psychic powers in the feature film The Men Who Stare at Goats, inspired by the book of the same title. Also in the Sonic the Hedgehog, one of the characters, Silver the Hedgehog has psychokinetic powers to destroy enemies. There are many Pokemon that practice telekinesis. Most of these Psychic-type Pokemon, and they have telekinesis-inspired moves such as Psychic and Confusion. Notable examples of such Pokemon include Mewtwo, Alakazam, Jirachi, Metagross, and Gardevoir. In the Mortal Kombat Series, the character Ermac has telekineses.
In the television series Heroes (2006–2010), the serial killer Sylar, portrayed by actor Zachary Quinto, frequently exhibited telekinetic ability.
The comic book character Jean Grey of the X-Men exhibits extremely powerful telekinetic ability.
PROPOSED REVISION #1 (another is below):
Psychokinesis has been an aspect in movies, television, computer games, literature, and other forms of popular culture. An early example in literature is the 1952 novella Telek by Jack Vance. In the 1976 film Carrie, based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, Sissy Spacek portrayed a troubled high school student with telekinetic powers. She was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress, the first psychokinetic character portrayal in a film ever to be so recognized ( Ellen Burstyn was the second, in 1980's healer-themed film Resurrection). Psychokinesis is also commonly used as a power in a large number of videogames and role playing games.
Here is my new proposed revision. As for adding a public domain painting, I had one of Jesus performing PK with the raising of Lazarusyears ago, but editors took it out because there was no specific reference to "psychokinesis." As for re-including a video game example, I say only if it is the most famous example that can be found; otherwise, here we go again, everyone will be adding their favorites. 5Q5 ( talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
PROPOSED REVISION #2:
Psychokinesis has been an aspect in movies, television, computer games, literature, and other forms of popular culture. An early example is the 1952 novella Telek by Jack Vance. Notable portrayals of psychokinetic characters include Sissy Spacek as a troubled high school student in the 1976 film Carrie, based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, and Ellen Burstyn in 1980's Resurrection. 1 2 Psychokinesis is also commonly used as a power in a large number of videogames and role playing games.
Discuss: Should we add the late North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to the list of notable PK claimants? Apparently the official line was that he could control the weather. This is also mentioned, both with different references, in his Wiki bio and the North Korea article. I have also come up with these high quality supporting refs: MSNBC, Dec 22, 1011 "In life, he was extolled by North Korea's fawning media with feats like a miraculous ability to control the weather and several holes-in-one on the golf course. and The Telegraph Dec 28, 2011 "He reportedly spread the myth across North Korea that he could control the weather with his moods, as if by magic.". Probably other refs out there. I've seen some that say it is in his official biography and that North Koreans are taught it in school. We could also add his photo from his bio. I think it would be an interesting addition. Thoughts? 5Q5 ( talk) 18:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's terrible. How about this? And shift the references into the body somehow. Mcewan ( talk) 23:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Psychokinesis (from the Greek ψυχή, "psyche" (mind) and κίνησις, "kinesis", (movement)), [1] [2] [3] is a term coined by publisher Henry Holt [4] to refer to the influence of mind on an object that cannot be accounted for by the mediation of any known physical energy. [5] Examples of psychokinesis could include distorting or moving an object, [6] and influencing the output of a random number generator. [5] [7] [8]
Most scientists believe that the existence of psychokinesis has not been convincingly demonstrated. [9] A meta-analysis of 380 studies in 2006 found a "very small" effect which could possibly be explained by publication bias. [10] PK experiments have historically been criticised for lack of proper controls and repeatability [11] [12] [13] and some experiments have created illusions of PK where none exists as a result of the subject's prior belief in PK. [14] [15]
Some parapsychology researchers claim psychokinesis exists and deserves further study, including recent attempts to influence random number generators. [16] [17] [10] [18]
psycho-, a combining form representing psyche in compound words. ... (Gk, comb. form of psyche breath, spirit, soul, mind; akin to psycheim to blow).
psycho. comb. form relating to the mind or psychology: ...from Greek psukhe breath, soul, mind.
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
Much of the work of the PEAR group has employed 'random event generators' (REGs), which are essentially electronic random number generators whose ' operators' are invited by dint [force, power] of their own intentionality, to bias in such a way, that the mean of the random number distribution would be either higher or lower than it would be in the absence of their intentional efforts...
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
[M]ost scientists, both psychologists and physicists, agree that it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated.
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Benassi1979
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
There are many problems with this article and I'll discuss a few that are problematic as an encyclopedia article. In the article, there are questions about whether or not it exists, but then makes statements about violating laws of physics or have a bias opinion that leads more towards an absolute. The second thing is that this article seems dated and requires a strong sense of revision. James Ramdi has had many individuals and groups, some very distinguished research organizations have been either declined their prize or ignored. Additionally, Speaking about James Randi is highly controversial as it's been suggested by many that he is only utilizing skepticism as a means to make more money. There's also a lack of documented evidence stating that it is in fact something that exists. There have been many universities, over a thousand that have published documentations that psionics or psychic abilities is indeed true to the given extent of their research. There's also a lot of controversy involving this because various news agencies have been caught stating differently than the results and evidence show that the research completed that were against the idea that some if not all humans may have psychic abilities are mostly if not all flawed. Again, this is very well documented. I mainly care to see that this article is revised into becoming a less bias and more scientific entry, rather than a "it doesn't exist but there are some people that say it does" kind of article. All of what I've been discussing can be Googled and found from reliable and well established research organizations and universities as well as independent researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.113.165 ( talk) 08:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The result was consensus to maintain the article in American English, with noted exceptions. 5Q5 ( talk) 13:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC) |
I am requesting a policy decision for this article as to whether it should be written in American English or British English. A number of UK-based editors have been gradually converting it to British English, changing spellings like "criticized" to "criticised" and moving periods to outside of end quotation marks (the latter may be allowed, see "No opinion" below). One unregistered UK editor recently added a flag to the top of the article indicating in that editor's opinion that the article needed copyediting for grammar, spelling, and style. The article was originally written and maintained in American English, so these conversions appear to violate WP:RETAIN. A language policy for this specific article will allow any editor to revert material contrary to the consensus language and avoid edit warring. The following allowed talk page straw poll to ascertain consensus is being conducted in accordance with WP:NOTVOTE.
Please state your preference opinion, American or British and add a reason.
This article is obviously biased. I've added references to a few scientific research experiments which legitimately indicate PK activity. I'll add more later.
COice6 (
talk) 05:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
COice6, I pasted the entire reference section in a text editor and then did a phrase search for "Foundations of Physics" and came up empty, so it would be a new source for the article and it looks like a good find. Seeing as how the journal has a physics Nobel laureate associated with it as editor-in-chief and others in the past on its editorial board, it definitely qualifies as a high-quality peer-reviewed source for Wikipedia content, even better than other references (like Dean Radin's book). The material of yours that was deleted by editor LuckyLouie is already covered and sourced in the article in other places, along with rebuttals by skeptics, so what you proposed to add is not controversial. I guess the problem was that, and I agree, being in a new subsection, you forgot to balance it with available opposing viewpoints. COice6, if you want to add your material below to the "PK experiment" subsection, I would support that, so long as the line I have added about the skeptics' position following your material is included. Other editors are free to tweak my line if they want.
5Q5 ( talk) 15:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This is an argument I don't believe you can win. Foundations of Physics is cited as a source in over 1,000 Wikipedia science articles (found by way of a Google search). Below is just a sampling. There were so many scientist biography articles I had to stop adding them early on. The "Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory" was retracted by the journal, as the WIkipedia article indicates.
Foundations of Physics cited in the folowing articles:
John Stewart Bell (Northern Irish physicist, and the originator of Bell's theorem),
Bell's spaceship paradox,
Bell's theorem,
Complementarity (physics),
Bifurcation theory,
Faraday constant,
Free will theorem,
Graviton,
David Hestenes (American theoretical physicist),
Basil Hiley (British quantum physicist ),
Interpretations of quantum mechanics,
Introduction to quantum mechanics,
Language of mathematics,
Many-worlds interpretation,
Mathematical universe hypothesis,
Matter wave,
Measurement problem,
Measurement in quantum mechanics,
Non-equilibrium thermodynamics,
Philosophy of mathematics,
Philosophy of physics,
Physical quantity,
Constantin Piron (Belgian physicist),
Principle of locality,
Quantum Bayesianism,
Quantum gate,
Quantum logic,
Quantum nonlocality,
Quantum potential,
Reality,
Ruggero Santilli (Italian-American physicist),
Speed of gravity,
Max Tegmark (Swedish-American cosmologist),
Temperature,
Theory of everything,
Timeline of quantum mechanics,
Anton Zeilinger (Austrian quantum physicist), any many more.
5Q5 (
talk) 19:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The editor AndyTheGrump has started an edit war concerning the material in the box below, even as he is being considered for a block on the Administrator's Noticeboard for edit warring elsewhere (the link given may need updating when a decision is reached). Rather than flag the material or start a discussion here, he just deletes a line that has been in the article by way of consensus for years. I am not going to play the edit war game with him, so I am therefore seeking consensus from other editors at large as to whether the quoted line in the source is adequate. Joe Nickell, the skeptical author of the book is clearly defining what thoughtography is for his readers. He is not passing judgement on anyone's claim of that ability. The author, Nickell, is just providing a definition of the term. Do you agree that the cited source is sufficient?
5Q5 ( talk) 18:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Re the claim "The editor AndyTheGrump has started an edit war", that is factually incorrect. 5Q5 made an edit. AndyTheGrump reverted it, which was proper vbehavior -- see WP:BRD. 5Q5 reverted, thus starting an edit war, which was wrong. AndyTheGrump then reverted, thus continuing an edit war, which was wrong. And now that you are discussing it (as you both should have done in the D of BRD) I am seeing comments about the other editor (bad),along with comments about article content and sourcing (good). You have both been around long enough to know better. Please discuss what the content of the article should be and whether there are sources for your preferred version, and please do so calmly, rationally, and without talking about other editors. In other words, more light and less heat, please. -- Guy Macon ( talk)
Timeline:
Encyclopedia of Hoaxes
by Gordon Stein
Gale Group (1993)
ISBN
978-0810384149
5Q5 (
talk) 15:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I have flagged the Nensha article at top for additional citations needed. Apparently the word is real, but as part of a UK publisher's 1931 Japanese-to-English translation for a book title. As I explain in a post on the talk page there in the topic Nensha?, it is unclear yet (to me) whether Nensha specifically refers to a psychic impression on photographs or other objects and creatures as well, like maybe making a doll haunted. I would like to propose the following changes to the PK article:
These changes I am proposing would resolve this topic discussion as far as I'm concerned. Okay? 5Q5 ( talk) 15:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, great, another long post from me, sorry. Perhaps it's because in real life, I'm a professional writer with etymology (word origin) credentials and this particular topic is important to me. The purpose of the discussion in 2007 about the "Types" section was to set a referencing standard that required a source to refer to the ability listed as being under the umbrella of psychokinesis and that a source must be from a nonfiction work; in other words, you could not directly use a Stephen King novel like Carrie or Marvel comic book as a reference for telekinesis, but you could use a serious analysis book like The Physics of Superheroes. Now, on to something else. I am once again curious about your reasoning for rejecting my Joe Nickell reference. I highlighted and pasted the entire text from the official guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources into a .txt file and then did a word search for "context" as in your use of the phrase implying that I "ignored the context that the source places "thoughtography" in." I then searched for "relevant" and "relevance." I then did the same thing for the official guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Results: the words "context," "relevant," and "relevance" are not on any of the pages. Respectfully, can you please point to an official policy or guideline that you are referring to as your justification for the rejection? The "Terms" section is not the "Belief" section, not the "Scientific view" section, etc. It is strictly to establish that the abilities listed are in the lexicon under the greater term of PK and references there only need to prove that. Maybe there is some official policy or guideline out there, but I can't find it. I didn't bother to check essays or how-to guides (aka how-to essays), as they are unofficial and cannot be used to force an action. The still unexplained deleted line simply says, for terminological purposes, that thought images placed on film are described as thoughtography. The line in author Joe Nickell's book matches that description using similar language. It is part of the author's introduction for the reader so that they will understand the terminology being used as he then goes on to present his opinion about a particular claimant of the ability that he just defined. WP policy seems to merely state that a source must verify what is written in the article. For a reference used only in the "Terms" section, how has this not occurred using Nickell's definition of thoughtography? I could see your point if it was being used in other sections discussing the pros and cons of claimants or the alleged science, but not good enough just to document the existence of the term? Thanks. PS. the editor Martinphi has been the only one to date to give me a barnstar for my over seven years of hard work on this article. Unfortunately, since that 2007 award, he has been blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely for reasons I have not looked into. Perhaps if I had chosen a different article in the beginning, my luck would have been better and I would have had a less stressful existence on Wikipedia. Thanks, again. Now signing off. 5Q5 ( talk) 17:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Mann Jess for their recent edits to the article as seen in this version. It's a much improved article that now conforms to WP:FRINGE policies. I've edited some of the photo captions to help bring them in line with policy, but in particular, I'm not sure "File:Telequinesis o Telequinesia.ogg" adds anything to the article, as it seems to portray some kind of pseudoscientific fantasy "where the influence (or energy) projected from the magician to the apples is represented by a light." LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
As one of the hard-working, under-appreciated editors who has actually done contributory work on the psychokinesis article in the way of text and all the photographs over the past seven years and sourced a large number of accompanying references, due to the massive revisions done by the editor
Jess (aka
Mann jess) and supported without hesitation by the editor
LuckyLouie, without considering seeking consensus first in consideration of all the other editors who have worked on it all those years, I can no longer verfify that the references in the article match its content. This article is finished as far as I'm concerned, has been taken over by biased editors, and I will no longer work on it, monitor it, or even archive its talk page as I have also done all those years (I expect this post to soon disappear in a vengeful archiving edit). If it were allowed, I would seek consensus to have every single contribution I have ever made to the article removed and push it back to the stone age of minimal content. Thank you for proving once again why some news organizations
forbid the use of Wikipedia as a source due to its unreliability. My conratulations also to the many IP address sock puppets and
organized closed-minded skeptic-gangs (and
here) working this article. I am removing the bookmarks for the history logs of this article and talk page from my browser. Another professional writer and 15-year open-minded published member of a skeptics organization in the real world volunteering to try to improve Wikipedia bites the dust. Don't hesitate, add your insults and snide good riddance remarks below, perhaps via sock puppets to maintain hit and run anonymity. Good bye.
5Q5 (
talk) 20:39, 28 November 2013 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |