Talk:Psychic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena"

"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)

I don't agree, it sounds like splitting hairs. It doesn't make sense that saying "a psychic is..." must be followed by a statement that is verifiable fact while the subtle change to "the word psychic means..." allows it to be followed by a factually unverifiable statement. We should just say what it is, not mislead with wording that that makes an opinion sound like a fact. Looking at this page, that definition seems to have been stable for a while and POV push is recent and seemingly unilateral on the part of one editor. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But, that is what the word "psychic" means. Whether or not anyone meets that definition is a different matter. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that is what the word means. No one is splitting hairs- only saying what the word means. And since it is "as a noun," no one is going to take it as a statement about whether or not psychic powers really exist. See, that is not the statement. We don't say "As psychic is," we say "as a noun the word psychic means" (to paraphrase). The definition of a word is not the same as skepticism about the reality of the thing the word points toward. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I like the current version:

As a noun, the word psychic means a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena, although the existence of psychic phenomena is frequently disputed and people claiming to be psychic are often challenged.

I see no neutrality problem with an unequivocal definition of "psychic" as long as we make it clear that the actual existence of psychics is a subject of contention. For example, I would also see no problem with an unequivocal definition of "griffin" (e.g., "a griffin is a lion with wings") in the same circumstances; problems only arise, I think, when the definition is given without background information. — Elembis (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Putting two subjects in the same sentence is just bad writing. It is really stupid to act as if there is a POV problem with defining a word. As Elembis says, "As a noun, the word "griffin" means a lion with wings." You say that, then you put in the next sentence, or even in the next paragraph, that its existence is disputed. That's just good writing. It is bad writing and POV-pushing skepticism to insert it into the same sentence with the definition of the word. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There might be a somewhat better way to word it, but it does indeed look better than a needless run-on. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As Elembis said, "a griffin is a lion with wings" is only acceptable when it includes info that it's a legendary creature. Go look at Griffin, the definition starts with "legendary creature". Just try and change that one to "As a noun, the word "griffin" means a lion with wings." You'd be laughed at. Virtually all articles on topics whose existence is disputed mention the dispute as part of the defininition (and this one did until Martin insisted on taking it out recently), the exception seems to be articles like this one. I don't see the huge objection to connecting the two phrases with "although", if it seems awkward find a better wording. This is an encyclopedia, while we'd like to have it worded as smoothly as possible, the higher priority is neutrality and factual accuracy. It's also a bit ridiculous to call connecting two sentences with an "although" POV pushing, it's just making sure that a fact we all seem to agree on is included as part of the definition. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because the very definition of a griffin is that of a legendary creature. The definition of a psychic is someone who has psychic powers. The although just reads as being too forced, and the halves of the sentence too separate to warrant a comma. I've just attempted a new rewording utilizing a semicolon. It's probably not terrifically refined, but I'm hoping it's better than it is worse. diff. Anyone? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the new wording - I think it definitely improves the POV problem. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the semicolon is completely fine - "It binds two sentences more closely than they would be if separated by a full stop/period. It often replaces a conjunction such as and or but. Writers might consider this appropriate where they are trying to indicate a close relationship between two sentences, or a 'run-on' in meaning from one to the next; they do not want the connection to be broken by the abrupt use of a full stop." That sounds like exactly what we should do to avoid POV. "Bad writing" isn't a reason for changing it. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:03, 8 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. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, they are inexorably linked. It is not biased to state that there is an extreme amount of controversy over the application of the definition because there is. Keeping the sentences separate would not reduce bias if any exists, as it conveys exactly the same information; it's merely a style issue. As the second sentence is directly and strongly related to the first, it makes more sense stylistically to use a semicolon to demonstrate the relationship. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Since psychics are a disputed topic, the dispute is part of the definition. Stating it without that is POV since the sentence makes it sound like psychics exist, which isn't verifiable. Do we need to do a RfC over a semicolon? Seriously?

And Martin, could you refrain from citing "as Milo said on the talk page" when you obviously disagree with my comments? The POV of your edits is bad enough without you misrepresenting what I have said. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it very difficult to see the semicolon as an example of bias. To use the griffin analogy (which I realize may be inadequate), the proper definition would be "As a noun, the word 'griffin' means a lion with the wings and head of an eagle; however, such creatures are universally seen as mythological." To define what a thing is is to imply that the thing actually exists, so the existence controversy and the definition are necessarily connected. — Elembis (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And the use of a semicolon is not implying one side is correct or not. It's merely demonstrating that the two sentences are related, which they are. As I said, it's purely a stylistic distinction now. It's usually better English to separate such fundamentally linked sentences (where the second largely depends on the first) with a semicolon rather than a period with a conjunction, and it improves flow. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Except, I have no idea why you would think that what skeptics believe depends on the definition of the word "psychic." As it is, it is a change of subject, inserted into the middle of the definition. But the fact that people don't believe in the phenomena doesn't really have anything to do with the definition of the word. By rights, this ought to have its own paragraph, as it often does. But since it is inserted in the middle of the definition, let's not imply by the sentence structure that there is a connection between what some people think about the reality of the phenomena, and what the word means. Because there isn't. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying the definition shouldn't mention the existence/non-existence/dispute whatever at all? If it were up to you, what would the definition say? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence, as it stands right now, starts with a conjunction. A conjunction gives it a dependence on the first sentence. Without the conjunction, it's disjointed from the rest of the intro and would better be removed to its own paragraph, which removes the balancing viewpoint with the way it's written at the moment. With the conjunction and the implied dependence, it's just better form to use a semicolon. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:57, 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.

The Breathing/Psychic Energy Connection

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)

Removed it. [1] Anyone opposed to the removal? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

i thinkt aht should we should merge the article psychic energy to this page because its basicalyl the same concept repeated again for vandalism reasons. Smith Jones 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a different concept. Psychic energy is explaining an old idea that the psychoanalysts had about the energy that made up the mind. It's not really related to people who claim control of paranormal powers. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OH oky i hadnt read the article clearly my msitake then Smith Jones 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Smith Jones 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and i why was the talk page archived???

"a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena" revisited

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)

Latest revision

[2]. I do not know. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:42, 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.

We also can't first define a psychic as one who is psychic, and then as someone who says they are psychic, as Smith did. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Because then we'd have to get into explaining that there are some people who say some psychics are real, and there are some people who say no psychics are real.... Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version has some mildly munged up wording. In any case, you're arguing semantics, and not in a way that makes any particular sense. Sentences often talk about other sentences. In such a case, a semicolon and/or conjunction can be useful. If you don't want "mixing", the only good solution would be to separate the article into Psychic (for) and Psychic (against), with neither article mentioning the opposing points of view. Otherwise, these normal English conventions are helpful for keeping like ideas together, presenting both points of the view in the same location, and maintaining flow. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just seperate it into:

• Paragraph one: what the word means, and where it comes from
• Paragraph two: what the different camps think about it.

No fuss. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

VGD. Depends on how it's implemented. It could very well work. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

okay im willing to accept martinphi's new version. does anyone thinkt aht it should be reverted agan?! Smith Jones 01:29, 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? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't notice that the change was already made before I posted that comment. And then I was about to post a follow-up and simply got bored. Then my GPU proceeded to take the computer down. Et cetera. Right now, I have no idea if it's okay or not. It's decent, but it seems to be missing something. I can't see anything specifically wrong with it though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, great. I was thinking that we could do something like this:

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. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems needlessly complicated. I think this article got it right in the first place by simply defining it as a purported phenomena. Which is what it is, according to our available sources. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo, I seldom use the word "nonsense" when referring to what another editor says. But that is plain nonsense. In fact, the most WP:V sources we have say that in fact psychic phenomena exist. You just can't source to skepdic.com or CSI. Or even to a dictionary or something which says psychics are "alleged", and expects people to know that it means the phenomenon which is in doubt, rather than that anyone who says they are psychic are in fact psychic. What you want is simply to discredit. That is POV. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What sources to you feel say that psychic phenomena exist? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you review the parapsychology journals, you will find many. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about specific edits to a specific article. If you're going to argue that claim, please provide specific sources. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. "Psychic" means a certain thing. Whether it exists or not is in dispute. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I see your qualifier. It is minority definition, however. Also, it is, as I said above, incorrect to say that a psychic is anyone who "aparently," has, or "claims to have" psychic abilities. A psychic is someone who really has them. A person who claims to have them and does not is a fraud. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BETTER IDEA

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)

That's probably fine, though I'm not sure it's necessary with this small number of links. I reverted it as I interpreted it as possible vandalism; I had no idea what you were trying to accomplish, and you did it incredibly messily. Can you please use the Show changes before submitting edits? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay i'll do that. the reason why i recommend is tbecause the last psychic article afore this one had a bunch fo links and most parapsycholoy articles have a bunch of external links and it helps to seperaate them because it turns tinto a jumbled sloppy mess after a while and can be painfult o read for long periods of time. if you think i should i;ll hold off for a while until we can get more links otn this webpage. Smith Jones 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Purported"

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)

As I said previously, many times: that is not accurate. A "psychic" is not a "psychic" because he purports himself to be, but rather because he has powers. The definition of "psychic" is someone with powers. Period. To say so is not POV. From there, we can go on to viewpoints about whether the powers actually exist. Purported psychics may or may not be psychics. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I'd like to hear from other editors on this. Opinions? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:35, 10 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)

Martinphi has already explaned this to us in this tasame talkpage. the consesuns was to define the word and then talk about whether onot its real or not in th enext paragraph. there is nothing wrong with this, and adding a retarded word like "priuporteD" to it will jist make this article stupid and badly-written. Smith Jones 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Smith (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome Smith Jones 16:26, 11 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)

Milo why dont you like te system we have now??? Smith Jones 16:26, 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)

Category Rename?

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)

If "Psychic" by definition is someone with paranormal powers then that's what the article should be on. It should discuss the term and also mention people who "claim" to be psychics as well as it's role in popular culture. If someone wants to make another page for "purported psychics" and mention people such as Sylvia Browne then that's another thing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken (and I haven't really researched it), the reason for categories is that they help people find things. No one is going to search for "purported psychic." Thus, this only makes the page less avaliable. I'm not used to this, but I think I may be agreeing with Wikidudeman. He seems to be saying that since a psychic is by definition someone with paranormal powers (as the page says), then the page should be the category "Psychics;" and that the page should also mention people who may be claiming to be psychic but aren't, or that there should be a page or section for "supposed psychics," and their role in culture? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What Wikidudeman doesn't know is that the category has already been changed, and needs to be changed back. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is still called "Psychic".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that either rename the article or put the category back to "psychic?" Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:52, 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)

Yes, I think I am confused. Where should I take this discussion then?--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree with the name of that category. Those people are indeed "purported psychics". Saying they are "Psychics" would be POV.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm a little less bothered by it since I suspect that most of those people are fakes, but still, how would I go about changing it back?--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't go about changing it back. It's NPOV. "Psychics" would be POV. Secondly, To address martins objection. We could easily direct "Psychics" to either this page or that category. No big deal there.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is if I did find a category title to be POV, how would I get it changed? I'm just trying to figure out how things work around here. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The procedure is outlined at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Procedure. Thanks for being curious. — Elembis (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Searching for "psychics" redirects to this page already, which lists the category at the bottom. Annalisa, why would you want to change the category back to Psychics? --Minderbinder 01:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I understand what I going on, I don't. However, since we're on the subject, I do think that 'Psychic entertainers' would be a better title, since the word 'purported' is not part of most people's vocabulary. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:33, 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. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

First, AGF. I'm not patronising anyone, I'm asking an honest question. Second, you do realize that you're reversing the burden of proof, right? You think that when someone declares themself a psychic, the claim has to be accepted unless it is disproven? --Minderbinder 01:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all- "psychic" doesn't prove or disprove anything- it's just a word. "Purported psychic," however, makes a claim. I thought the "Thanks for being curious" thing was patronizing. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was completely sincere in saying "Thanks for being curious" to Annalisa Ventola. There's nothing wrong with "trying to figure out how things work around here", in her words, and I respect people who do. I guess next time I'll include a smiley face to be more clear. =) — Elembis (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's like ether. May not exist, but you don't say "purported ether." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about Martin? It's our burden to prove that "all psychics are purported"? Firstly it's not our burden to do any such thing and secondly, It's easy to do. By definition "purported" means "reputed or claimed to be". If a someone on that list is not "reputed or claimed to be a psychic" then they don't belong on the list. Simple as that. Saying someone is a "purported psychic" doesn't mean they aren't psychics. It just means that they or someone purports them to be such. Claiming they are simply "psychics" would violate NPOV.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, If "Psychic" is defined as someone who DOES have psychic powers (which is what you have been arguing for the past month) then having the category named "Psychics" would violate NPOV. If "Psychic" is simply defined as someone who "claims to have paranormal powers" then we should change it to such in this article. You can't have it both ways Martin.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A psychic could be a psychic without being reputed or claimed. What list are you talking about ????? Yes, we could keep the category. But we also need a category "Psychic." We shouldn't have a category "Psychics," but "Psychic." We could have one "Purported psychics," and one "Psychic," but not just one. How about that? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Psychic" isn't a claim?

• This article defines "psychic" as "the word means a person who can produce psi phenomena"
• Putting a person in a category called Psychic is saying they are a psychic.
• Saying they are a psychic is saying they can produce psi phenomena

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 concur with Martin.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the list you were talking about? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Milo, if we have a page which talks about a lot of people who claim to be psychics, and also about psychic powers, then it is in categories "Purported psychics" and "Psychic." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Having people in a list called "psychics" would seem to support the claim that they are psychics. Which 1. Is POV and 2. baseless. Having them in a list called "purported psychics" is NPOV because it's true. They "purport" to be psychics as is evident from their own claims. See MIlos' post.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Which articles would be listed in a hypothetical category called Psychic? --Minderbinder 02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WDM- what and where is this list you're talking about????????????????? But I agree with what you say, if such a list exists.

Milo, I'm guessing anything which had to do with psychic things as a phenomenon- EVP, Psychic, Parapsychology, etc. And any article which you'd also use with "Purported psychic."

See, the thing is, the Psychic article itself doesn't fit into "Purported psychics," as it doesn't really cover any. It does fit into a category in which such powers, real or no, are discussed.

I assume the "list" he's talking about is just the existing category: [[:Category:Purported psychics]]. --Minderbinder 02:22, 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? Martin^phi _{(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)

Here's why. --Minderbinder 03:04, 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)

It isn't there: I took it out. I think Milo means it was there just because Noclevername put it there? Great. We have no problem here. I basically assumed that this was another attempt to cast purely rhetorical doubt, which I never like. But it did make things more accurate. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What i'm asking is, Why isn't [[Category:Purported psychics]] in this article? The Psychic article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

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? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi the categor yis used tyo talk about everything involving that topic, not just things that are difined by the atopic. the "psychic" doesnt have to be a "psuedocscience "but many people talk about it as if it was and WIKIPEDIA goes for verifiablity not facts. Smith Jones 00:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. But I bet I'd get all kinds of flack for putting that category on, say, the JREF article. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The JREF deals with pseudo science everyday and is a very important aspect of it. I would not oppose having a link to "Pseudo science" on the JREF article. However listing the JREF itself as a form of pseudo science makes no sense because the JREF is an organization and has never even claimed to be a form of science or anything of the such. It's simply an organization who's goal is to promote critical thinking.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good argument (although the article deals extensively with the prize, which has been called pseudoscience). The thing I'm trying to find out is, since "psychic" is also not a form of science, why is the pseudoscience category on the article about it? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The JREF challenge never claimed to be "Science" so how could be pseudo science? Yes, The challenge itself takes a scientific approach but that doesn't mean it's a "form of science" and it never claimed to be such. You can't call something "pseudo science" when it never claims to be science to begin with. "Psychic" may not be a form of "pseudo science" but that doesn't mean it's not linked to pseudo science. Having the category "pseudo science" in this article isn't saying "Psychic is pseudo science", It's just saying "Psychic phenomena is intrinsically linked to pseudo science" which it is. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, psychic phenomena is linked to parapsychology, and parapsychology is pseudoscience? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't get into that debate again, So no. I'm not asserting that "psychic phenomena" is linked to pseudo science because parapsychology supposedly studies it. I'm asserting that it's linked to pseudo science because many of the supposedly scientific things done concerning "pscyhics" is pseudo science.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"many of the supposedly scientific things done concerning "pscyhics" is pseudo science." Could you be more specific? I really don't understand. What is this pseudoscience? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ever watch psychic detectives? They claim that what they're doing is science in just about each episode. Or how about "ghost hunters" who parade around in old houses with so called "psychics" and claim that what they are doing is science?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:29, 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. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They're about as psychic as anyone else who claims to be "psychic". I.E. not at all. However it's irrelevant. This page isn't about "real psychics" because there is no credible evidence for such. This page is about people who CLAIM to be psychic. That includes the Sylvia Brownes of the world and it includes the people who run around "hunting ghosts" and call it science. These people are doing "pseudo science" and therefore this article needs a link to that category.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about people at all. Read it. It doesn't even mention any of these things. It is about the concept, the hypothetical ability- not about science at all. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's not about science at all, why does this article talk about science? You can't have it both ways. If the topic is presented as a science, then it can be classified as a pseudoscience. If the article made no mention of science, at least you could argue it's not a pseudoscience because it's not scientific at all. --Minderbinder 03:45, 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. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories on Wikipedia are just a way of organizing information. You can search to find articles. You can click links to find articles. Or you can use category pages to find related articles.

So in that sense, category pages on Wikipedia are meant to be a list of related articles, not necessarily a "label" for the article, though I can see how it might be seen that way. Technically speaking, a category is a label outside of Wikipedia, but how it's used on Wikipedia it's more like a relation, or a "See Also" list. It's very informal. You don't see citations or references or anything like that on category pages. It has a lot more to do with technical organization than facts.

So the question wouldn't be if psychic is a pseudoscience, it's whether or not psychic is "related" to pseudoscience. For that I'll say definitely. Psychic isn't just parapsychology and it isn't even just psychic phenomena, studied scientifically or not. It's the whole ball of wax. In pop psychic culture, so-called psychics often employ pseudoscientific methods in readings, using tarot cards, astrology, palmistry, and many other pseudoscientific things.

Pseudoscience is something that sounds scientific but really isn't. Tarot cards, astrology, palmistry, and all of that fits that description and so "Psychic" is related to pseudoscience.

This isn't a reflection on parapsychology or the scientific study of psychic phenomena. It's an informal "see also" and has as much to do with pop psychic culture as anything else.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's comical how Martin's jumping through logical hoops to try to justify not putting the pseudo science category in this article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to...?

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)

I keep seeing quotations of a lot of polls, but I can't find a really good source for them. I don't know how to get the results directly from Gallup. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gallup charges for their polls. You have to quote a paper or some other source quoting them. For example, here is the most recent poll of beliefs in paranormal phenomena conducted by Gallup in 2005:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15400020

It was in an article by the Skeptical Inquirer. There's other sources for the same information, but this one is about as thorough (listing most of the data) as it gets.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's one that shows higher education leads correlates to a belief in the paranormal : )

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060121_paranormal_poll.html#table

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not hardly. You're confusing correlation with causation.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Correlation-causation, still interesting because it at least challenges the assumption that people who believe it's not all bunk are somehow completely ignorant. You have to know at least something to get to college.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 08:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, Not necessarily. Just because people who are more educated tend to hold a specific belief doesn't mean that they somehow critically reasoned themselves into that belief. There are many highly educated christians and many highly educated Muslims. Even a few highly educated Scientologists. People often compartmentalize their beliefs, Sometimes they hold beliefs which they think logically about while they simultaneously hold beliefs that they don't think logically about. Just because someone believes something absurd and false doesn't mean they are "ignorant". It just means they have compartmentalized that specific belief or beliefs and have not thought critically about them. Newton is a good example. He was one of the worlds greatest scientists and highly intelligent, yet he also believed in Alchemy and bible prophecy. Clearly bunk, yet he believed in them. Moreover, Most colleges and most areas of study in college don't teach critical thinking skills. Even the most educated people can easily be fooled if they don't have critical thinking skills. This is evident from the fact that many scientists were fooled by Uri-Gellers "spoon bending" tricks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Critical thinking, or at least the basics of it, are taught freshman year in general writing classes. I agree that many of the people surveyed probably don't seriously think about it. The article I linked to didn't say they obsess over it or anything like that. But they did think about it long enough to answer the question on the survey and somehow rationalized their belief (however unthought about it the belief is). All I said is that they aren't completely ignorant, which is true. Somehow they got to college. In getting there, they took basic science classes the same as anyone else in high school.

Besides, the article says, "As people attain higher college-education levels, the likelihood of believing in paranormal dimensions increases." We're not really talking about basic courses, we're talking about higher courses.

People are always confusing science as the only rational, logical way of thinking. That's simply not true. Newton being the world's greatest scientist doesn't mean that his openness to bible prophecy is irrational. I'm not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think agnosticism is logical and doesn't preclude religion. It just pigeon holes science. Science can study the physical world and not find a god, but logically speaking, that whole line of thinking is dependent on science's capability of study. Since science is in the natural world, it's logical to think that science is only capable of studying the natural world. None of that rules out the possibility that something might be outside the natural world. It is completely rational and logical to realize the limitations of science as many great thinkers have done. Another famous scientist for example, Descarte, questioned everything under the sun including science and was skeptical of any knowledge besides the existential fact we're here thinking. Now that's true skepticism! : )

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 09:46, 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)

Like Elembis said, doesn't really belong here, so I'll answer your questions and leave it at that.

1. Yes, the basics of it, so that the student can form the critical opinion needed to write essays. I'm not making it up, it was a part of the first year writing classes. Maybe it's not everywhere, but it was part of the course when I took it. Even in the Wikipedia article it says the courses in the UK are available to 16 to 18 year olds.

2. Don't need to. What I said is that Newton's openness to bible prophecy isn't necessarily irrational. You can think rationally about things that don't fit the mold of science. My point is that science doesn't have exclusive rights to logic.

3. Who cares what he was arguing? He did a really good job of pointing out the limitations of knowledge and science.

So, anyway, if you want to continue the discussion, you can add it to my talk page. Doesn't bother me either way.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 03:18, 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)

WDM, now that's more like my field. Descartes went on to try and prove the existence of God. To say it was nothing more than an argument for the existence of God is like saying that just because Newton was wrong about the ultimate way physics works, his ideas about gravity were just a detour on the path of science. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:57, 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)

I know nothing about what Pat Robertson spouts, but dismissing Descartes because he went on to bunk is simply off the topic- Nealparr was only referring to what he said epistemologically, as a starting place. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits

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)

Why, thank you Milo, I'm glad you liked our work. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:49, 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)

MAYBE iyou should bring all of the a"unsported" claims here" so that we can work together to give them support like [www.wikipedia.com] <--fro examle citation or other things~!!!') Smith Jones 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

?? As clearly as I can understand what you're saying, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reasons why). Wikipedia's supposed to be a source of reliable (or at least confirmable) information, not speculation. Noclevername 19:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

PARAYSYCHOLOGY.ORG

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)

Please, please, PLEASE try to write more clearly. Seriously. -- Noclevername 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

do you have anything constructive tos ay ahout my site? Smith Jones 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Smith, if you are dyslexic or something, and can't type more clearly, would you please tell us? Otherwise, would you please be more careful? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

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. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I found af ew source here that talk about psychics and psuedoscience.

---

here is a book about it

---

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)

Thanks for the sources Smith (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it can stay in the pseudoscience Cat, (with proper sourcing) but only if it is also in the science Cat. There are plenty of sources for relating it to science. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say put Parapsychology under science, but leave Psychic where it is ("psychic" isn't the name of a science or a pseudoscience, just a potential subject of study). It's sort of like putting "automobile" under Physics just because a car engine uses the laws of thermodynamics. Noclevername 06:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right- but the article is now under Cat pseudoscience. I'd say take it out of both science and pseudoscience. Is that what you mean? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:50, 21 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)

Then we are in agreement. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blog?

This site [[3]] appears to be a blog. As such it fails WP:EL and should be removed. Comments?

Personal website- but it isn't a blog, is it? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my own terminology there, a blog to me is really a personal website. Either way, I'm after comments to see if this link is suitable under [[4]] specifically point 11. Shot info 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think ,that the link should stayt because there needs to be equal amounts ofPostivie PSychic informaiton to make sure that there is POV. Smith Jones

From the background information on him, he appears to be a well-known professional journalist, if true, he would be acceptable under WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, as well as the exception to point number 11 "except those written by a recognized authority". Dreadlocke ☥ 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarly see him as a "recognized authority" authority on the subject (psychic) nor as a RS given Dawkin's comments in Richard_Milton_(scientific_researcher). So I'm questioning it's use here in the article. After all, if it mets RS and EL then it is more appropriate over at JREF itself. "equal amounts ofPostivie PSychic informaiton" wtf. Shot info 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is he a well-known professional journalist? From a quick scan, it looks like he's done a lot of work and research on paranormal related issues. BTW, Dawkins' comments don't break him as an RS, that's an issue defined by Wikipedia guidelines and rules, not just someone's opinion. I've quoted the relevant Wikipedia rules for issues like this, that's how we make the determination. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I took it out and put in the PA instead- in case Y'all didn't notice. Any objections? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, fine by me. I wasn't attached to it at all. Just discussing the rules.. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena" doubly revisited

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 definition is in the definite minority. It is also misleading, as it makes the assumption that the powers don't exist- which is OR, and POV (see parapsychology page, and others). It would be like saying that anyone is a psychologist if they hang an sign out saying they are. No, no matter what definitions you find which say this, it is not a correct definition. In fact, I don't believe that this is what the definition you site means. Rather, they expect the reader to know that when they say "A psychic is someone who claims to have psi powers," they mean the reader to know that what they mean is "A psychic is defined as someone who has psi powers. But, these powers don't exist." So the latter is really the only definition there is.

Audacity, I also shared your concern. However, I would much rather have a clear definition of "psychic," and keep the Category, than weasel the definition. This present solution is much the lesser of two evils. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What if Edward Cayce admitted he was a faker, then you would have the worlds most famous psychic is not a psychic anymore, under your definition. What about a person who does cold reading on tv and it says "psychic" on their tax return--is he not a psychic? Audacitie's definition is the correct one: A person who is alleged to have psychic powers. Even if that person themself doesn't believe, or isn't sure that she's a medium. I know psychic powers exist--and most people probably demonstrate psi phenomena a few times in thier lifetimes, does that make us all psychics? I know I'm not a psychic. Maybe the problem is that the word has two definitions: sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or supernatural nature. a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces--sounds like the same thng, but they aren't, but they are all psychics whether they are really sensitive or not. That's why this changing the name to Purported Psychics is BOGUS! Puddytang 04:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"What if Edward Cayce admitted he was a faker, then you would have the worlds most famous psychic is not a psychic anymore, under your definition. "

Correct

"What about a person who does cold reading on tv and it says "psychic" on their tax return--is he not a psychic?"

The IRS is a victim of skepticism- this is about legal terminology, not psychics.

"and most people probably demonstrate psi phenomena a few times in thier lifetimes"

Yes.

Well, I'd much rather change the Cat than change the definition. However, there are definitions which one could use which could accomodate everyone.

Here is what we could do:

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.

This is quite confusing and clumsy, but we could do it. What you are basically proposing, though, (without my addition) is to take any mention of the fact that the phenomena might be genuine out of the defintion. That's why Milo likes it (um... wrong page, see Talk:Mediumship).

You are also eliminating a really good generall policy: define the phenomena as real, then say that there is skepticism about it. It is just an invitation to weasels. It is what the skeptics have been trying to do on here for months, in an attempt to discredit anything and everything psychic. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. My objection isn't that it says that it might be genuine, it's that it says that it is genuine, which is POV and unverifiable. Some people believe it's genuine, some don't, but at this point it hasn't been verifiably proven by WP standards - what you call "weasel" is just using a NPOV description of the fact that we're talking about something that is a proposed concept and not a proven one. I think any of these proposed changes would be an improvement, although the last would be more NPOV if it said "It can also refer to the alleged/purported/claimed (pick one or an alternative) magical or psi phenomena themselves."

As for "define the phenomena as real, then say that there is skepticism about it." that's not how wikipedia works. To define it as real, we need a reliable source saying it's real (and the more extraordinary the claim, the more/better sources we need). Good luck taking that approach at something like Bigfoot, Time cube, or Unicorn. Or heck, just try going to Jesus and "defining" him as the son of God, mentioning somewhere later that not everyone believes that. --Minderbinder 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When exactly was that version I reverted? Looking back, I can't find a version that said "according to the PA". And claiming that there's a difference between "define the phenomena as real" and "say it is genuine" is splitting hairs. You can't just throw "defined as" into a fringe definition to make it NPOV. --Minderbinder 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I put "In the field of parapsychology." But that is almost the same difference, and is sourced to the PA. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:33, 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)

That's pretty good, actually. Current version alright with you? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"A person who actually can"? Sounds like WP is saying a person who actually can exists. --Minderbinder 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are, as in not at all uncommon, ignoring words. The words in question here are "the word can mean". We are only defining what people mean when they say the word. We are not taking any stand on whether the phenomenon is real or not. Another example would be "The word angel can mean a heavenly being." That is just what an angel is defined as. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:52, 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)

I don't think there is a chance in hell of getting rid of that- but it has a huge advantage: if there is a Cat "Purported psychics," then defining the word "Psychic" as anyone who says they have the powers no longer works at all. The same with any other subject whose Cat has a so-called modifier.

Puddytang, I see what you're saying about terms, above. I just think that the distinction is between fake psychics and real ones (if exist). That is the distinction I think we should make, not call anyone who says they have powers a psychic. And, if you have psychic powers for only a second in your life, then you are a psychic for one second. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:24, 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)

Guys, "psi" is an industry term. No one's going to know what you're talking about. It's far better to say "psychic phenomena" or something similarly recognizable. I made that change some time ago and am not sure why it came back to saying psi. Again, like I said before, this article shouldn't be an extension of the parapsychology article (the only people who use the term psi are parapsychologists). I think making the article that way would be a great disservice to it.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 19:22, 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. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not really how the term psychic is used. A magician that incorporates psychic tricks into his act still calls himself a magician or an illusionist. The only people who refer to themselves as psychic are the people want you to believe that they actually have psychic abilities. So there's no need to distinguish between real psychic abilities and magic acts. Even if there were a need to, the article would still need to find some more recognizable way of saying it than "psi" because, again, that term is only used by parapsychologists. I'm too lazy to check, but I'm almost willing to bet that if you open any of the other encyclopedias out there (Britanica, Encarta, etc.) you won't find the word psi in any of the entries for psychic unless they have a subsection on parapsychology.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Def

Examples of current definitions that get along fine without injecting POV regarding who might be real psychics.

psychic The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English ... psychic • adjective 1. people thought to be psychic synonyms : clairvoyant, telepathic, telekinetic, spiritualistic. 2. psychic powers/influences/research synonyms : supernatural, supernormal, preternatural, preternormal, psychical, extrasensory, otherworldly, paranormal, ...

psychic The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English ... psy·chic / ˈsīkik / • adj. 1. relating to or denoting faculties or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws, esp. involving telepathy or clairvoyance: psychic powers. ∎ (of a person) appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy or ...

psychic A Dictionary of Psychology ... psychic adj. 1. Another word for paranormal , or sensitive to paranormal or spiritual phenomena, influences, or forces. Also written psychical. 2. Mental as opposed to physical. n. 3. A person who professes paranormal or spiritual powers or abilities.[From Greek psychikos of or relating to the ..

LuckyLouie 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I liked the way you changed it fine, LL. The current version is fine by me. I never wanted to insert the distinction, which I never heard used anyway. But if we had to have a distinction, I wanted it to be very clear. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I reverted your recent change back to the old version, as the second definition is definitely used. If you take a look at [[:Category:Purported psychics]], you'll find many articles that describe the subjects as "self-professed psychics", but many others that just call them psychics; for example, Hélène Smith. Do you think that the latter use is wrong, and must be replaced with the former? I don't.

To answer your objection of "So if I say I'm a psychic I am one?", I changed "claims" to "professes"; the latter implies a long-term and serious claim. Λυδαcιτγ 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't really my change- I got an edit conflice on your revert of LuckyLouie, and I was just fixing his- he took out your change. We could compromise on having a full explanation, like I tried to have, mentioning magic and illusion. But see discussion above, OK? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As a noun, the term psychic refers to a person who can produce psychic phenomena, or who professes to be able to do so. So...what would be some examples? --- LuckyLouie 01:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're talking to Audacity? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I think the magic and illusion piece is POV, as it assumes that there are two types of psychics: the fake magic types, and the real types. The existence of the latter has yet to be proven. LuckyLouie, the examples will depend on your viewpoint. In my opinion, all psychics are in the latter category ("professes to be able to do so"). Martin, I sense, would say that there are certain people who fall into the former category. Is that correct, and if so, who? Λυδαcιτγ 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't say that. What I say is that since it isn't ours to decide that there are or are not psychics, we have to either just define what people mean by the word- which is someone with real powers. Or if we are going to define it to include mentalists and others, then we have to say so clearly. But we can't just say "the definition of a psychic is one who fakes psychic phenomena." That is POV. The current version is NPOV, but it is not clear enough. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with wording like the definitions LL quoted? I don't think it's NPOV or accurate to say "a psychic is someone with powers", and I also think it's misleading to use a "two kinds of psychics" definition since that also makes it sound like WP is saying there are real psychics. So what's the objection to just using something like "said to be"? It seems to be the most neutral since it doesn't say that they exist or don't exist and leaves open the possibility for either. It's a big red flag when editors are insisting that wording similar to that in many mainsteam dictionaries and encyclopedias is unacceptable - if we're taking an opposing position to those, we're likely pushing a fringe view.

It isn't our job to decide if there are psychics, it's our job to reflect the consensus of sources. And since we don't have verifiable, sourced info saying that psychics exist, we need the article to reflect that. It's extremely POV to write the article so that it sounds like WP is saying psychics exist. --Minderbinder 14:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree . Not suggesting that Google is the authority here, but I have to wonder why we are straying so far from common definitions. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=psychic+definition&spell=1) - LuckyLouie 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Louie, I have concerns about "a person who can produce psychic phenomena" sounding like WP is saying that people who can produce psychic phenomena actually exist, although I can see your reasons for disliking the "dual" definition. Do you still favor that wording, or would you like to suggest an alternative? --Minderbinder 15:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Minderbinder, I agree, it's kind of a mess. Whoever has edited this article has cleverly used a dictionary defintion in order to make it "read" that psychics are genuine, and then switched to encyclopediac style to add parasychology support for it. I'd really prefer the article to use one of the standard Oxford defintions I listed above, and avoid semantic gymnastics.

As for the "two kinds of psychics" -- that is pure POV and should not be discussed in the intro. --- LuckyLouie 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What about something like "As a noun, the term psychic refers to a person who is said to be able to produce psychic phenomena"? This doesn't claim proof or disproof, and "said" seems to get less objection than things like alleged, claimed, purported, etc and doesn't make a distinction between people saying it about themselves or about others. And is "As an adjective, psychic refers to events which involve psychic phenomena" acceptably neutral? Unfortunately, Mediumship seems to suffer the same linguistic gymnastics. --Minderbinder 18:56, 26 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. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding NPOV (I'll assume not intentionally so). NPOV doesn't mean presenting all subjects as if there's an equal possibility of them being valid or not, it means presenting how the subject is generally accepted. If a majority of dictionaries and encyclopedias use qualifiers, that's a good indication that the mainstream view is a qualified one, and we are obligated to present that. Also, insisting that dictionary definitions "say something different from what they mean" is original research. We have to assume they mean what they say, if you think they have worded poorly you'll have to take that up with the editors of those dictionaries and encyclopedias. Not to mention that using a word like "alleged" or "said to" isn't "deciding whether the phenomena exist or not," it's making a neutral statement that allows for either possibility. --Minderbinder 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with NPOV. This has to do with presenting a definition which is theoretically possible under all conditions. If a skilled mentalist doesn't perform, and therefore is not "alleged" to be a "psychic," he is still a mentalist. Your definitions just don't work, and it has nothing to do with NPOV. It is not OR, because of the argument presented on the Mediumship talk page, concerning the definition of the qualifier. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it just doesn't work, then why do most dictionaries and encyclopedias define it that way? Pardon me for being skeptical that you know better than the editors of most reference books. And I don't see how the definition I've propsosed isn't "possible under all conditions". It covers both "real" psychics (if they do exist) as well as those faking it. --Minderbinder 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained on the Mediumship how it doesn't work. If you don't want to go there and read it, I'll be glad to copy it over. The reason, as I explained, is that they are trying to save space. What they actually mean, as per the definition of the word, is that there is doubt as to whether the phenomenon is real. Which is a abbreviated way of saying "This is the definition. But some people don't believe it exists" except that if you take it literally, it means that, for instance, only people who are alleged to be psychic can be psychics, and if someone doesn't say they are, then they aren't. As I said before. I'm really getting tired of telling you the same thing over and over. Please read what I write, and think about it logically. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You obviously don't agree or like it, but WP policy says we have to take sources literally. Assuming that they mean something other than they say, or interpreting "what they actually mean", falls under original research. --Minderbinder 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not when those same sources give the definition of the word they are using. As I already said. It is only CIVIL to respond directly to what other people say. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

why not add put a link into the word psi sot hat people can undesrtand what it means? it semes like that might be a better idea than using a strnage word like "psychic phenomena", which people might not understand either. not everyone will know what 'phenomena' is anyway and using the parapsycholoy definiton will just help to inform more people about what thes ewords means. an idea Smith Jones 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The definitions from the dictionary are irrelevant here. This is a discussion of POV and I hold the contention that when most people hear the term "Psychic" they instantly think of someone who HAS psychic powers and not "someone who supposedly has them". We should be concerned about how people view the term and not what any one dictionary says. If someone believes that "Psychic" means supernatural powers then they will instantly see any article that claims someone is a "psychic" as either supporting their claims of supernatural powers or completely bias. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether the dictionaries are totally irrelevant or not. However, I agree that what we must do is to simply define the term as being "A person with psychic powers" (as you say), and then say that skeptics believe that these powers don't exist, but are only self-delusion, mentalism, etc. That give the reader the full understanding, and all the infomation needed to go and research further. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So what's the problem?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Milo wants to make skepticism part of the definition. He wants to say something like "Psychics are people who are said to have paranormal powers." Which, of course, is POV, because it rules out a person who has them and is not said to have them. Or, he wants to say "alleged," in which case no one who is not alleged, has them. Also, Audacity wants to have "psychic" also mean "mentalist" or other magical tricks. And if we do that, having "said to" or "alleged" as part of the definition would rule out a mentalist who no one had seen perform. The definition which has qualifiers inserted in its heart, as opposed to being explicitly qualified, just doesn't work. When I say "explicitly qualified," I mean that you say "A psychic has paranormal powers," and then afterward, in the summary, you say "There are skeptics who believe..." etc. And you can define it as also meaning "mentalist," but the definitions and the doubts about them should be in separate sentences- and probably paragraphs, so as to keep the thoughts separated for clarity. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd semantic game you're playing. "Psychics are people who are said to have paranormal powers" would include people who actually have powers as well as those faking it. It doesn't rule out either case. And if that's "wanting to make skepticism part of the definition" then I guess most dictionaries and encyclopedias are guilty of that as well. Not to mention virtually all of the wikipedia articles about activities that are said by some to exist but not proven. --Minderbinder 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. But it wouldn't include a psychic who had the powers and didn't tell anyone. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're seriously debating theoretical constructs, such as "psychics who have powers but don't tell anyone". What's next? "Psychics who want to tell someone about their powers but live in remote areas devoid of population"??? LuckyLouie 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it

Can someone explain again why these definitions are not acceptable?

• psychic - The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English ... psychic • adjective 1. people thought to be psychic synonyms : clairvoyant, telepathic, telekinetic, spiritualistic. 2. psychic powers/influences/research synonyms : supernatural, supernormal, preternatural, preternormal, psychical, extrasensory, otherworldly, paranormal, ...
• psychic - The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English ... psy·chic / ˈsīkik / • adj. 1. relating to or denoting faculties or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws, esp. involving telepathy or clairvoyance: psychic powers. ∎ (of a person) appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy or ...
• psychic - A Dictionary of Psychology ... psychic adj. 1. Another word for paranormal , or sensitive to paranormal or spiritual phenomena, influences, or forces. Also written psychical. 2. Mental as opposed to physical. n. 3. A person who professes paranormal or spiritual powers or abilities.[From Greek psychikos of or relating to the ..

LuckyLouie 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Thought to be" rules out those who have the powers and aren't thought to have them. Dark matter is aparently inexplicable by known natural laws, but is not, so far as I've heard, psychic. And "psychic" isn't another word for Bigfoot. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dark matter is perfectly explainable by natural laws, how do you think it was discovered? It wasn't discovered through cold reading :-) Shot info 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I said, known natural laws. Heh. And it was discovered by cold reading: taking clues than no one else sees, and guessing... Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your "natural laws" are not related to math or physics. Or you wouldn't say this. Check out dark matter for more info. I don't need to defend science here but just to point out your (mis)use of the subject. Shot info 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Aiy, yi, yi. Martin, if you're challenging standard Oxford definitions as biased, then I'm not gonna wrestle with you about it here and now. Eventually this article and any others with similar semantic contrivances will have to be submitted for formal RfC or mediation. --- LuckyLouie 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Never said biased. I said, demonstrably untrue. Do you have any reason to believe "Psychic," is Bigfoot? Or a reason to believe Bigfoot isn't paranormal? Do you have a reason to think that a psychic cannot be psychic in private? Do you really believe that everything apparently inexplicable by known natural laws is psychic? These definitions are a joke. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Go with the Oxford definition. There's a problem with your argument Martin. You said, "'Thought to be' rules out those who have the powers and aren't thought to have them." The problem with that is that the term "refers to". If there are people who have the powers but aren't thought to have them, then they aren't *referred* to as psychic. They might be referred to as something else, but they're not referred to as psychic. The second definition, the natural laws, is completely accurate as well. Those who believe in psychic phenomena come up with theories to support it, but there's no *natural law* to support it. Natural laws being things like the law of gravity, etc. There's no natural laws that support psychic phenomena and we can't base the definition off some law that might come about in the future.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 02:06, 27 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? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A word is just a symbol. They always refer to something. The wording I suggest is a play on the Oxford one, saying roughly:

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. A person who is thought to have these abilities or thought to be able to produce this phenomena are often called "psychics".

The "apparently inexplicable" but rather "not apparently explicable" is just shifting the words around but keeping the same meaning. That is, it doesn't seem to have an explanation by natural laws, which is entirely true. It doesn't say that there isn't an explanation. It just says that there doesn't seem to be "by natural laws", which as I've pointed out don't have a context for psychic phenomena. Natural laws are your very boring classical mechanics. All the theories that have been proposed for explaining psychic abilities are just that, theories, not laws. They don't fit within classical mechanics and therefore the psychic abilities are "apparently inexplicable by natural laws." Apparently.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 03:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"No one but Audacity likes this version, I think anyway"

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)

Most dictionaries met WP:RS and WP:V and are more than suitable for use in an encyclopedia. Other redefinitions or mangling of dictionary terms are just a subtle version of synthesis per WP:OR and should be avoided. Shot info 01:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want Wikipedia to promote bunk? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and doesn't have the space considerations of one. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Do you really want Wikipedia to promote bunk?" No, which is why I keep reminding all parties that we are writing an encyclopedia and using all those little "WP:xx" links. WP is not a dictionary, but as you keep reminding people "Never said". Please reread. Shot info 02:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So let's find a definition that works

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)

Well, a consensus can form with just one person not agreeing. Unfortunately when a large group of editors have WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:NOT on their side, it overides WP:ILIKEIT. I am personally all for the dictionary and scientific definitions thereof and expanding from there. The definition in use by the PA is a minority position of 200 or so people in a minority field. It is notable (and should be noted) but it shouldn't be given undue weight (per WP:WEIGHT) Shot info 02:19, 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)

One problem: the word is sometimes (often?) used to mean those who actually do have those abilities; e.g., "Are there real psychics?" Λυδαcιτγ 03:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the definition as I wrote it above, the term can be applied to real psychics, fake psychics, those who call themselves psychic, those called a psychic by others, any and all manner under the sun type psychic. The only requirement is that someone, anyone, themselves even, thinks they are psychic. As I pointed out earlier, someone has to think they are psychic in order for the term to apply to them. It's a pretty inclusive definition.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. With a bit of a copyedit. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My wife's not awake right now. She usually grammar checks me : )

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 06:10, 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)

Neal, I think that's quite good. There seems to be support for it so I'll put it in for now. --Minderbinder 12:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are people cool with this updated version?  ::If so, can we take a look at the similar trainwreck of a definition at Mediumship? --Minderbinder 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Much improved. --- LuckyLouie 19:39, 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)

I agree with Dreadlocke that the "brain" line is lame and the definition should be attributed (Dread, you will note it is from the OED per discussion above). Shot info 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't attribute a stolen line. And....it's lame - whether it's from OED or not - that doesn't make it anything besides lame.  :) Let's find something else - but only if it's better than the current version. I vote we go back to the original version, it was a perfect definition: [5]. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I've made a change which is purely from the American Heritage Dictionary (online at dictionary.com). And you can attribute a stolen line...it's called citation remember :-) However the old version didn't actually say what the common usage of the term is. Instead it was lifted from the PA and answers.com (which is not RS). The PA definition is their own definition for their own usage and it contains the baggage. The dictionary term while it contains the baggage of common usage, it is common usage and should be used. Note my sentance has one two many "pertains" feel free to edit. Shot info 02:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be in the form of a quote, not just a citation. The original was not lifted from answers.com and it is a perfectly acceptable definition according to parapsychology - which is what I believe we based this article on? The OED dicionary defintion is completely unacceptable as it is written. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:21, 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:WTADreadlocke ☥ 02:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So you feel that standard dictionary defintions of "psychic" are "wrong"? And only a minority definition is "right"? Please. Either send this article up for arbitration, or be more realistic. --- LuckyLouie 03:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Which standard defintions Louie? Ones that violate Wikipedia policy and guidelines like WTA? Or the one I referenced above? You find a better defintion that fits and is logical. You also need to learn how the Wikipedia:dispute resolution process works - certainly not as you state above. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Guess you'll have to complain to the editors of those mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias. Using a word like "alleged" or "said to" is making a neutral statement that allows for either possibility. And WTA is a guideline, not an excuse to define paranormal concepts as fact.-- LuckyLouie 03:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Guess I will, huh? In the meantime, Wikipedia has it's own policies and guidelines we need to follow. And yes, the concept of paranormal is fact, it's the reality of that concept that is disputed. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the existence of psychic/paranormal abilities isn't a fact. So defining a psychic as someone who has psychic/paranormal abilities is untruthful. Which is why standard mainstream dictionaries use qualifying phrases such as "said to be", "thought to be" and "held as". Such phrases are perfectly neutral and acceptable in an encyclopedia. I don't understand the reluctance to use neutral mainstream definitions. --- LuckyLouie 04:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reread what I actually wrote, I clearly denoted the difference between "concept" and "reality". The reluctance to the wording you propose (using alleged for instance) is that it is wrong, and illogical. Alleged doesn't come into the equation at all - either they do or they don't. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, in the past I tried your little wordings such as "said to be", the skeptics stuck that down so fast it makes your head swim - because, apparently, even that is something that says Wikipedia backs the existence of the paranormal. Ridiculous. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:26, 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.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 03:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you Neal, you know how much I respect you and your work. I was referring to the editor who apparently copied and pasted the actual wording from the OED version into the article. Rewording it is fine, but not just copy and paste. If I'm wrong about that, then I certainly apologize - but it certainly looks that way - which is why I used the word "apparently", if I'm wrong, then just say so. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Grr, everytime I go to write something it says edit conflict and I lose it! : ) Short version in lieu of the beautifully written longer version that Wikipedia ate: Not mad. You called the definition lame, not me. Def was mostly written by Oxford, so it's them that's lame. Brain means nervous system. Brain/nervous system fits because all the words in original-original definition, clairvoyance, psychometry, etc. transcend the nervous system. In other words they're extra-sensory. Def doesn't disagree with parapsychologist or mainstream definitions. It's inclusive, neutral, and accurate. Don't worry Dread. I still like you. If Wikipedia eats this, though, I hate them. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, should be quoted, not cited, I agree. Though some if it isn't verbatim. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite try

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). It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher.. The term is often used interchangeably with medium.

Thoughts? Dreadlocke ☥ 04:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

False consensus

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)

That's not what it says at Wikipedia:Consensus. Do you have an objection to something? --Minderbinder 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What that policy says is that there is no consensus if an editor objects. There is a process for working through that objection, first discussion then mediation. Generally, a Mediator can use a supermajority. You personally can't use supermajority in this situation. And yes, I object as I've outlined above. It's not major, but it was an objection that you completely ignored. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I know this from personal experience. I have been informed by administrators that consensus is not reached until everyone agrees. Been there, done that. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"What that policy says is that there is no consensus if an editor objects." Where exactly does it say that on Wikipedia:Consensus? I don't think you quite understand how meditation works either. --Minderbinder 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a direct quote, but it is clearly stated when it says in the section, Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_in_practice "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." Everyone means everyone. Then it goes on to talk about the use of supermajority. And like I said, I've been in that situation several times and no one has yet said you can overrule even a single editor besides going through the mediation process. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying you don't plan to abide by the outcome? Then what exactly do you plan to do? --Minderbinder 18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. I really plan to do nothing. I was just pointing out that you don't currently have consensus - but I'll be more than happy to give consensus at this point, I've already stated what I've thought should happen (replacing "brain" so that it reads:

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".

It seems simple and easier to understand than "brain". But all in all, it's not that important. Keep your brain if you like... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 18:24, 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)

Thanks for your input. You would think that something similar to a dictionary definition would be uncontroversial, but as shown above, some editors seem to think the mainstream dictionary definitions are in "the definite minority", misleading, OR, and POV. It seems to me like an excuse to push for POV versions instead. --Minderbinder 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I also came here from the RfC page, and I echo this recommendation. It's important to keep it clear that the term "psychic" has a dual meaning - first of all, someone who (definitively) has the stated powers, and also as someone who is noted for purporting to have such powers. For instance, Sylvia Brown is a psychic. However, there has never been any definitive proof that she has her powers - that does not mean the definition of psychic, as a noun, should not apply to her. --Haemo 06:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it is defined both ways. We could quote, but which quote? The one which defines a psychic as "supposed" or defines a psychic as simply having powers? Since we have conflicting definitions, I would suggest going with a logical definition of our own. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to me that a dictionary is generally a bad source for an encyclopedia, so I retract my recommendation. I would, however, recommend using dictionaries to guide you on contentious issues like this, but I recognize Martin's point that they may not be helpful here. I think it should be possible to write something that avoids trying to phrase the definition so as to claim there's no such thing as psychics. Those claims should be made later (but not much later), and they should be attributed to a citeable source. (I'm of course taking no stance on whether there are real psychics or not.) Gnixon 16:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Great job on the new version, by the way. I think it looks good. Gnixon 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

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)

no. some "well-maening ed"itor will just come and slap another "dispuited tag" back on the section as soon as you take it eoff. Smith Jones 23:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag is already gone, it was taken off a couple days ago. It seems like we finally have a version editors can agree on. --Minderbinder 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the sourcing there needs to be cleaned up a bit. I don't know where to start, so if someone can take a look at it, that'd be cool. What I'm talking about is that there's like five ref links for something that's not really controversial : )

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Not the place for it" ??

Where should this be then? It shouldn't just disappear, as that would violate NPOV. -- Fyslee/talk 00:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The part that was removed was previously in the intro. I moved it down to the research section because it concerns research on the topic, and that already has a section. I didn't take the time to read through the research section when I moved it, though I probably should have. The part I moved down was already in there, just worded differently. That's probably what Martinphi was thinking. It's repetitive. Nothing disappeared. The controversy over the research is completely covered in the research section.

Here's the original move [6]

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was written for the summary, and was merely repetition in that section. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. What about this half?:

"Skeptics say that those who claim to perform psychic feats may in fact be engaging in cold reading, hot reading, or self-delusion."

It needs to be restored somewhere. -- Fyslee/talk 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's similar to the wording in the first paragraph of the Psychic#Skepticism section. Feel free to re-word that so it encompasses what you think needs to be restored (I think it's missing the "delusion" part..). Dreadlocke ☥ 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of it being added to any of the sections. My moving around was more for organization.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have included it. -- Fyslee/talk 07:18, 3 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:

"Many parapsychologists who study psychic phenomena agree with skeptics that many of the instances of more popular psychic phenomena such as mediumism, can be attributed to non-paranormal techniques such as cold reading.[17] [18] [19] Magicians such as Ian Rowland and Derren Brown have demonstrated techniques and results similar to those of popular psychics, but they proffer psychological explanations instead of paranormal ones. They have identified, described and developed complex psychological techniques of cold reading and hot reading."

Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

untrue

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).

That sounds an awful lot like original research. We can't write articles based on personal experience, instead we need reliable sources. --Minderbinder 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

actually mindbenderer a lot of transed psychics have do say that everyone can use psychical powers because its now really magic but actually an innate abiltiy shown by humans that can be devleoped through psychical training. Here are some noted psychis that say the same thing:

• http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/170316/using_your_psychic_clairvoyant_gift.html
• http://www.ufoarea.com/psychic_everyonehas.html
• http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/lifestyle/lifestyle/view_article.php?article_id=18963
• http://www.erinpavlina.com/blog/2006/03/ask-erin-can-anyone-be-psychic/
• http://www.spiritualguidancetarot.com/developintuition.html -- researcher Christin Snayder
• http://strange.myeyez.net/se-features-item.php/6 -- even sylvian browne a very famous psychic thinks that he pwoer s can be shared
• http://www.psipog.net/activepsy/psyfaq.html

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)

Okay, first of all, the fact that large numbers of people claim that "anyone" can be a psychic really isn't here or there. This article is about the property, or ability, of being psychic - it does not, and should not, purport to speculate in any ways about the extent to which this ability manifests in the population without hard evidence. Rather - as it does now - limit its scope to simply describing the ability, and give some context. We should specifically avoid doing what you suggest, which is make the encyclopedia a battleground over unverifiable viewpoints about the incidence of a phenomenon of this nature. --Haemo 06:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

you dont understand what i eman i'm trying to say that its a notable viewpoint among a lot of very prominent people like Sylvia Browne and Chrsitain Snayder that everyone can be a pschic. I'm not sayhting that you shoudl present it as true but maybe a sentence like, "Many psychics and parapyschologists claim that psychic ability exists in everyone", which is something that is doesn in a lot of articles.

But why is that an encyclopedic statement? In an article about the government of the United States, should we add a sentence stating that "Many people believe the US government is run by lizards from outer space". No, not really. The point is, this article is about the adjective/noun "psychic" - it aims to describe, classify, and give context to it. Unless we have some reliable sources attesting to the widespread belief in a broad incidence of psychic powers, we probably shouldn't talk about it. After all, all we're relaying here is someone opinions about how common something is - why that opinion, and not any of the other common ones? --Haemo 19:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

if we include the believes of skelptics that n the should by obviousness include the belifs of many prominent parapsychologists like the ones who run the website above. Dont you agree with that Sylvia Browne and a parspychilogist named Russel Targ BOTH hold this viewpoint and so do many others, therefore it ias a common viewpoint among alleged psychics and parapsycholgists, and dont you think that widespread beliefs by important sources such as Russel Targ's Parpasychology Institute should be included? No important souce is about hte "lizards run the gov't" thing but there are some about the psychics so why not include that??? you arguments are not very convincing to me as of now.. Smith Jones 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how an encyclopedia works - the views of skeptics are included because they are widespread, well-published, and can be cited reliably. Furthermore, the comparison you are making is incorrect - skeptics claim there that psychic phenomeona do not exist; they do not, however, make anything more than an implicit claim about the incidence of psychic abilities. This is very different from what you are suggesting being added to this article. Moreover, you do not any WP:RS that indicate that this belief is by any means widespread. I am aware that some notable people believe - however, that does not translate into widespread belief without a source to back it up. Also, as a side note, you are confusing "important" with "notable". Your sources are notable - whether or not they are "important" is a matter of personal opinion. For instance, I can definitely find you notable sources who support my "lizards control the government" viewpoint - however, whether or not they are "important" is a different question entirely. --Haemo 00:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

okay i understand then now. thank you for you're explanation. Smith Jones 04:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - if you end up finding some surveys or something on the topic, definitely bring it up here; the more content the better. --Haemo 23:08, 6 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))

Free Manual

'There has also been a free manual posted at 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)

Yep, it's been slain! --Haemo 23:08, 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)

1garden

!11garden there is a lot o fo shit that goes on that with his debate just read through previous comments and the ian rchive. and then you can find issues and decisions that may yopu not comppletely like and respect and you can argue ginst those or change them if ou think that they should not be reflecting the adque thje belief systems of psychics in a fair and neutral way?! Smith Jones 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, ok. Shot info 09:26, 25 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)