Jump to content

Talk:Clairvoyance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tammyfoster365 (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 8 September 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Of relevance to "Generally considered pseudoscience"

Creepy/poor picture

The article's picture is extremely unsettling and poor quality, I suggest a replacement.--Sığe |д=) 22:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

A recent diff (among other things) changed the capitalization of section headers. It's my understanding that section headers follow MOS:HEAD and should be in sentence case. I'll fix these if there's no objection.

Some of these terms for other flavors of clairvoyance seem unlikely to me. "Clairofactus", for instance. Do more reliable sources exist than some devotee's website glossary?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out page and post Humm56700 (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jmcgnh: Yeah, I undid that edit – I have no opinion on or rs's for that specific terminology, though. Debouch (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clairvoyance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too dogmatic

This article is too dogmatic in attempting to write the study of clairvoyance off as a pseudo-science - there must have been controlled experimental studies of the subject. Vorbee (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think "fringe science" needs to replace "pseudoscience" in this article and it--the article needs to chill on the rhetoric. Not the Britannica article on Clairvoyance it doesn't waste space and froth at the mouth about Clairvoyance's failure to be "proved." There has been researchers using established as of 2010 methods to research, though nothing conclusive was produced since as a result of his study, Dr. Daryl Bem's research entered psychology into an epistemological crises. Dr. Bem is still established as a researcher and still researching Clairvoyance (as of last year). Clairvoyance attracts therefore attracts serious research and has had findings published in a high factor impact journal by a well established researcher (Dr. Bem). Therefore "pseudoscience," while also being an oxy moronic term (please see my talk page) anyhow is inappropriate and overly strong language. I will edit the article to refelect and reference it differently--to the Encyclopedia Britannica article (less opinionated and one sided then the current references which are often simply individual opinions) and this Slate article <https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html> if no discussion ensues over the next week--He is who is silent is said to consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoatGod (talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned about WP:PROFRINGE and discretionary sanctions. Did a clairvoyant won Randi's (JREF) million dollars? No? I guessed so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not Britannica. We follow our own editorial policies, not theirs. The relevant ones here are WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRIND. These policies have been explained to you on your Talk page, and you've had ample opportunity to review them. It has been explained to you how these policies affect articles such as this one, and why it is appropriate that clairvoyance be referred to as pseudoscience. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is not an acceptable response if you want to stick around Wikipedia for long. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GoatGod: While a very interesting treatment of the subject - into which both skeptics and believers can read support for their positions - that Slate piece does not appear to come up to the level of reliable source I would expect to be given weight in this article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that we go by the cumulative weight of reliable sources, which in this case, justify statements of fact using the word pseudoscience. It's not our job to find ways to make it sound more ambiguous so as not to discourage personal belief or research funding. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the "dogmatic" assessment above. The article empahsizes the skeptic view and is not objective. Compare it to this online encyclopedia which is more realistic and even-handed: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Clairvoyance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.20.56 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No clairvoyant has ever won the million dollars from Randi (JREF)? I guessed so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Family

My husband Tammyfoster365 (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is my husband aan hpnest good man Tammyfoster365 (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clairvoyance&oldid=858562697"