Talk:Parapsychology and Witchcraft: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Martinphi (talk | contribs)
 
 
Line 1:
{{facredirect|Witch}}
{{Otheruses|Witchcraft (disambiguation)}}
{{talkheader}}
{{controversial3}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1 = {{WikiProject Paranormal|class=GA|importance=High}}
|2 = {{WikiProject Psychology|class=GA|importance=Low}}
|3 ={{Rational Skepticism|class=GA|attention=yes}}
}}
{{GA|oldid=145702823}}
 
'''Witchcraft''' (from Old English ''[[:wikt:wiccecræft|wiccecræft]]'' "sorcery, [[necromancy]]"), in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of alleged [[supernatural]] or [[Magic (paranormal)|magical]] powers.
{| class="infobox" width="300"
|- align="center"
| [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]
'''[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]'''
----
|- align="left"
|[[/archive1|Archive 1]] Nov 6, 2004
|-
|[[/archive2|Archive 2]] Nov 29, 2006
|-
|[[/archive3|Archive 3]] Feb 24, 2007
|-
|[[/archive4|Archive 4]] March 05, 2007
|-
|[[/archive5|Archive 5]] March 24, 2007
|-
|[[/archive6|Archive 6]] May 26, 2007
|-
|[[/archive7|Archive 7]] June 29, 2007
|-
|[[/archive8|Archive 8]] July 03, 2007
|-
|[[/archive9|Archive 9]] July 17, 2007
|}
__TOC__
{{clear}}
 
A '''witch''' (from Old English masculine ''[[:wikt:wicca|wicca]]'', feminine ''[[wicce]]'', see [[Witch (etymology)]]) is a practitioner of witchcraft. While [[Mythology|mythological]] witches are often supernatural creatures, historically many people have been accused of witchcraft, or have claimed to be witches. Witchcraft still exists in a number of belief systems, and indeed there are many today who self-identify with the term "witch" (see below, under Neopaganism).
==Great job on the merger==
 
While the term "witchcraft" can have positive or negative connotations depending on cultural context (for instance, in post-Christian European cultures it has historically been associated with [[evil]] and [[the Devil]]), most contemporary people who self-identify as witches see it as beneficent and morally positive.
To everyone involved, great job! --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 
The majority of people identified as practitioners of witchcraft in history were women.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}{{dubious}} Likewise, in legends and popular culture the stereotype is female. The term witch is typically feminine: masculine equivalents include [[Magician (fantasy)|wizard]], [[sorcerer]], [[warlock]],<ref>For a book-length treatment, see Lara Apps and Andrew Gow, ''Male Witches in Early Modern Europe'', Manchester University Press (2003), ISBN 0719057094. Conversely, for repeated use of the term "warlock" to refer to a male witch see Chambers, Robert, ''Domestic Annals of Scotland'', Edinburgh, 1861; and Sinclair, George, ''Satan's Invisible World Discovered'', Edinburgh, 1871.</ref> and [[Magician (fantasy)|magician]].
::Yes, It seems to be going well. I've got a question about these articles...
::[[Fraud in parapsychology]], [[Research results in parapsychology]], [[List of basic parapsychology topics]], [[History of parapsychology]], [[List of parapsychologists]], [[Scientific investigation of telepathy]].
 
==Overview==
::I've merged a few, However many of them contain information that isn't redundant but is still in terrible formating and in sad shape. It would make more sense to merge them to this article, adding a few bits of the relevant information from whatever is left. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:Baldung Hexen 1508 kol.JPG|thumb|right|[[Hans Baldung Grien]]: Witches. Woodcut 1508]]
Practices and beliefs that have been termed "witchcraft" do not constitute a single identifiable [[religion]], since they are found in a wide variety of cultures, both present and historical; however these beliefs do generally involve religious elements dealing with [[spirits]] or [[deity|deities]], the [[afterlife]], [[magic (paranormal)|magic]] and [[ritual]]. Witchcraft is generally characterised by its use of [[magic]].
 
Sometimes witchcraft is used to refer, broadly, to the practice of indigenous magic, and has a connotation similar to [[shamanism]]. Depending on the values of the community, witchcraft in this sense may be regarded with varying degrees of respect or suspicion, or with ambivalence, being neither intrinsically good nor evil. Members of some religions have applied the term witchcraft in a pejorative sense to refer to all magical or ritual practices other than those sanctioned by their own doctrines - although this has become less common, at least in the [[Western world]]. According to some religious [[doctrine]]s, all forms of magic are labelled witchcraft, and are either proscribed or treated as [[superstition|superstitious]]. Such religions consider their own ritual practices to be not at all magical, but rather simply variations of [[prayer]].
:::What we should do is link them <nowiki>{{main| Article}}</nowiki> for now, per [[WP:Summary]] and put "merge" tags on the appropriate ones. If there's no objections, I can handle that.--'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 
"Witchcraft" is also used to refer, narrowly, to the practice of magic in an exclusively ''inimical'' sense. If the community accepts magical practice in general, then there is typically a clear separation between witches (in this sense) and the terms used to describe legitimate practitioners. This use of the term is most often found in accusations against individuals who are suspected of causing harm in the community by way of supernatural means. Belief in witches of this sort has been common among most of the indigenous populations of the world, including [[Europe]], [[Africa]], [[Asia]] and the [[Americas]]. On occasion such accusations have led to [[witch hunt]]s.
I just nominated this for GA. While it seems to be worthy of FA, I think we need to wait and demonstrate stability. Receiving GA is a good step towards ensuring the FA is taken seriously. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Under the [[monotheism|monotheistic]] religions of the [[Levant]] (primarily [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]]), witchcraft came to be associated with [[heresy]], rising to a fever pitch among the [[Catholics]], [[Protestants]], and [[secular]] leadership of the [[European]] Late [[Medieval]]/[[Early Modern]] period. Throughout this time, the concept of witchcraft came increasingly to be interpreted as a form of [[Devil worship]]. Accusations of witchcraft were frequently combined with other charges of heresy against such groups as the [[Cathars]] and [[Waldensians]].
::I'm adding the "Parapsychology" category to each of the articles listed here [[List of basic parapsychology topics]], then I'm going to merge that page to the [[:Category:Parapsychology]]. Someone help me, Start at the BOTTOM and add <nowiki>[[Category:Parapsychology]]</nowiki> to each page. I'm going from the top down. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 
The [[Malleus Maleficarum]], a witch-hunting manual used by both Roman Catholics and Protestants, outlines how to identify a witch, what makes a woman more likely to be a witch, how to put a witch to trial (involving extensive torture and confession) and how to punish a witch. The book defines a witch as evil and typically female.
:::<s>Gotcha.</s> seems it's already done. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 
In the modern Western world, witchcraft accusations have often accompanied the [[Satanic Ritual Abuse]] [[hysteria]]. Such accusations are a counterpart to [[blood libel]] of various kinds, which may be found throughout history across the globe.
:::::The same thing needs to be done with [[List of parapsychologists]] except for [[:Category:Parapsychologists]] [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 
==Practices considered to be witchcraft==
::::::I linked the "fraud" and "research" sections to their main articles. "Scientific investigation of telepathy" really shouldn't redirect here as it's an offshoot of telepathy (or should be). --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Practices to which the witchcraft label have historically been applied are those which influence another person's body or property against his or her will, or which are believed, by the person doing the labelling, to undermine the social or religious order. Some modern commentators consider the malefic nature of witchcraft to be a Christian projection. The concept of a magic-worker influencing another person's body or property against his or her will was clearly present in many cultures, as there are traditions in both folk magic and religious magic that have the purpose of countering malicious magic or identifying malicious magic users.<sup>[http://freelovespells.ca/historyofwitchcraft.html]</sup> Many examples can be found in ancient texts, such as those from [[Egypt]] and [[Babylonia]]. Where malicious magic is believed to have the power to influence the body or possessions, malicious magic users can become a credible cause for disease, sickness in animals, [[Luck|bad luck]], sudden death, impotence and other such misfortunes. Witchcraft of a more benign and socially acceptable sort may then be employed to turn the malevolence aside, or identify the supposed evil-doer so that punishment may be carried out. The folk magic used to identify or protect against malicious magic users is often indistinguishable from that used by the witches themselves.
 
There has also existed in popular belief the concept of [[white witch]]es and white witchcraft, which is strictly benevolent. Many neopagan witches strongly identify with this concept, and profess [[ethical code]]s that prevent them from performing magic on a person without their request.
::In my opinion both should just be redirected here. I can't imagine how either are salvageable as articles. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 00:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Where belief in malicious magic practices exists, such practitioners are typically forbidden by law as well as hated and feared by the general populace, while beneficial magic is tolerated or even accepted wholesale by the people - even if the orthodox establishment objects to it.
:::I would tend to agree, but isn't there a bit too much content (at least in the Fraud one) to simply merge? [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 00:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
===Spellcasting===
::::I'm inclined to agree, but others may not. So you post a "merge" and let it take care of itself. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 00:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
{{main|Magic (paranormal)}}
 
Probably the most obvious characteristic of a witch was the ability to cast a [[spell]], a "spell" being the word used to signify the means employed to accomplish a magical action. A spell could consist of a set of words, a formula or verse, or a ritual action, or any combination of these<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary, the Compact Edition'', Oxford University Press, p. 2955, 1971</ref>. Spells traditionally were cast by many methods, such as by the inscription of [[runes]] or [[sigils]] on an object to give it magical powers, by the immolation or binding of a wax or clay image ([[poppet]]) of a person to effect him or her magically, by the recitation of [[incantations]], by the performance of physical [[rituals]], by the employment of magical [[herbs]] as amulets or potions, by gazing at mirrors, swords or other specula ([[scrying]]) for purposes of divination, and by many others means<ref>for instance, see Luck, Georg, ''Arcana Mundi: Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds; a Collection of Ancient Texts'', Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1985, 2006; also Kittredge, G. L., ''Witchcraft in Old and New England'', New York: Russell & Russell, 1929, 1957, 1958; and Davies, Owen, ''Witchcraft, Magic and Culture, 1736-1951'', Manchester University Press, 1999</ref>.
::I think we've seen how that happens. The tags sit there for months with nothing progressing. I also don't want to see a big ugly "merger" tag on this article. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
===Conjuring the dead===
:::The traditional process is to tag it with merge. There may be other editors invested in those articles who don't know about the draft update here. That said, [[WP:BOLD]]. The can always revert it. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, "[[necromancy]]" is the practice of conjuring the spirits of the dead for [[divination]] or [[prophecy]] - although the term has also been applied to raising the dead for other purposes. The Biblical 'Witch' of [[Endor]] is supposed to have performed it (1 Sam. 28), and it is among the witchcraft practices condemned by [[Ælfric of Eynsham]]:
 
"Yet fares witches to where roads meet, and to heathen burials with their phantom craft and call to them the devil, and he comes to them in the dead man's likeness, as if he from death arises, but she cannot cause that to happen, the dead to arise through her wizardry."[1]
:::I don't particularly care either way. But as I honestly don't have much of an interest in expanding a sole fraud article, I'll consent to a merge/redirect. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 00:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
==By ___location==
::::I went ahead and redirected them. If anyone thinks they deserve their own articles, let them work on them, I see no way to salvage either one of them and see numerous copyright, POV, grammar, redundancy, and Style problems. Nearly all of the relevant information in them exists in this article or it's sources. As you say, They can always revert it if they don't like the redirect. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 01:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
===Europe===
{{main|European witchcraft}}
[[Image:Sejdmen.jpg|right|250px|thumb|During the Christianisation of Norway, King [[Olaf Trygvasson]] had male [[völva]]s (shamans) tied up and left on a [[skerry]] at [[tide|ebb]].]]
[[Image:Persecution of witches.jpg|thumb|250px|Persecution of witches.]]
 
The characterisation of the witch in [[Europe]] is not derived from a single source. The familiar witch of [[folklore]] and popular [[superstition]] is a combination of numerous influences.
==Recent Edits==
 
The characterisation of the witch, as an evil magic user, developed over time. <sup>[http://www.geocities.com/eildontree/reading/christianwitch.html]</sup> The advent of Christianity suggests that potential Christians, comfortable with the use of magic as part of their daily lives, expected Christian clergy to work magic more effectively than the old Pagan way. While Christianity competed with Pagan religion, this concern was paramount, only lessening in importance once Christianity was the dominant religion in most of Europe. In place of the old Pagan magic methodology, the Church placed a Christian methodology involving saints and divine relics &mdash; a short step from the old Pagan techniques of numerous [[deity|deities]], [[amulet]]s and [[talisman]]s.
I think that nominating this article for GA status is waaaaay premature. There are a lot of grammatical issues and general readability issues that need to be addressed.
 
The Protestant Christian explanation for witchcraft, such as those typified in the confessions of the [[Pendle Witches]], commonly involve a [[diabolical pact]] or at least an appeal to the intervention of the spirits of evil [http://www.pendlewitches.co.uk/].
I have made edits to the first paragraph and first paragraph only. Feel free to work at it yourselves. Aside from adding the bit about the "phenomena suggestive of survival of consciousness", and the deletion of the last sentence, the paragraph reads roughly the same, but tighter and better I think.
The witches or wizards addicted to such practices were alleged to reject [[Jesus]] and the [[sacrament]]s, observe "[[Sabbath (witchcraft)|the witches' sabbath]]" (performing infernal rites which often parodied the [[Mass]] or other sacraments of the Church), pay Divine honour to [[Satan|the Prince of Darkness]], and, in return, receive from him [[preternatural]] powers. Witches were most often characterized as women. Witches disrupted the societal institutions, and more specifically, marriage. It was believed that a witch often joined a pact with the devil to gain powers to deal with infertility, immense fear for her children's well-being, or revenge against a lover.
 
The Church and European society was not always obsessed with hunting witches and blaming them for bad occurrences. [[Saint Boniface]] declared in the [[8th century]] that belief in the existence of witches was un-Christian. The emperor [[Charlemagne]] decreed that the burning of supposed witches was a pagan custom that would be punished by the [[Capital punishment|death penalty]]. In 820 the [[Bishop of Lyon]] and others repudiated the belief that witches could make bad weather, fly in the night, and change their shape. This denial was accepted into [[Canon law]] until it was reversed in later centuries as the [[witch-hunt]] gained force. Other rulers such as [[Coloman of Hungary|King Coloman of Hungary]] declared that witch-hunts should cease because witches do not exist.
I'm going to wait a while before I go onto the next paragraph. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
The Church did not invent the idea of witchcraft as a potentially harmful force whose practitioners should be put to death. This idea is commonplace in pre-Christian religions and is a logical consequence of belief in magic. According to the scholar Max Dashu, the concept of medieval witchcraft contained many of its elements even before the emergence of Christianity. These can be found in [[Bacchanalia]]s, especially in the time when they were led by priestess [[Paculla Annia]] ([[188]]-[[186]]).
=="phenomena suggestive" vs. "the idea of"==
 
However, even at a later date, not all witches were assumed to be harmful practicers of the craft. In [[England]], the provision of this curative magic was the job of a [[witch doctor]], also known as a [[cunning folk|cunning man]], [[white witch]], or [[wiseman]]. The term "witch doctor" was in use in [[England]] before it came to be associated with Africa. [[Toad doctors]] were also credited with the ability to undo evil witchcraft. (Other folk magicians had their own purviews. [[Girdle-measurers]] specialised in diagnosing ailments caused by fairies, while magical cures for more mundane ailments, such as burns or toothache, could be had from [[charmer]]s.)
I used the phrase "phenomena suggestive of survival of consciousness" to reflect the idea that many (if not most) parapsychologists think that alleged hauntings, poltergeists, reincarnation, etc... is explainable by the behaviors of living people rather than the dead. If you think that this phrase is somehow POV, perhaps we could arrive at a compromise. However, parapsychologists don't study "the idea of" of survival. Maybe there is a better way? --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 03:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:"In the north of England, the superstition lingers to an almost inconceivable extent. Lancashire abounds with witch-doctors, a set of quacks, who pretend to cure diseases inflicted by the devil... The witch-doctor alluded to is better known by the name of the cunning man, and has a large practice in the counties of Lincoln and Nottingham."
:Simply saying "phenoma suggestive of" positively asserts that the phenoma they are studying is patently suggestive of life after death. It could say: "and other phenomena related to the concept of survival of..."? [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::<sup>Source: [[Charles Mackay]], [[Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds]]</sup>
[[Image:Goya - Caprichos (68).jpg|thumb|250px|[[Francisco Goya]]'s ''[[Los Caprichos]]'': ''¡Linda maestra!'' ("The Spoils: Beautiful Teacher!") - witches heading to a Sabbath]]
Such "cunning-folk" did not refer to themselves as witches and objected to the accusation that they were such. Records from the [[Middle Ages]], however, make it appear that it was, quite often, not entirely clear to the populace whether a given practitioner of magic was a witch or one of the cunning-folk. In addition, it appears that much of the populace was willing to approach either of these groups for healing magic and divination. When a person was known to be a witch, the populace would still seek to employ their healing skills; however, as was not the case with cunning-folk, members of the general population would also hire witches to curse their enemies. The important distinction is that there are records of the populace reporting alleged witches to the authorities as such, whereas cunning-folk were not so incriminated; they were more commonly prosecuted for accusing the innocent or defrauding people of money.
 
The long-term result of this amalgamation of distinct types of magic-worker into one is the considerable present-day confusion as to what witches actually did, whether they harmed or healed, what role (if any) they had in the community, whether they can be identified with the "witches" of other cultures and even whether they existed as anything other than a projection. Present-day beliefs about the witches of history attribute to them elements of the folklore witch, the [[charmer]], the cunning man or wise woman, the diviner and the [[Astrology|astrologer]].
::What if we left off "phenomena suggestive of" altogether, and just left it be (kind of like we do with extrasensory perception and psychokinesis)? --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Powers typically attributed to European witches include turning food poisonous or inedible, flying on broomsticks or pitchforks, casting spells, cursing people, making livestock ill and crops fail, and creating fear and local chaos.
::Sounds fine. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 03:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
See also:
:::No. Right now it says..
* ''[[Malleus Maleficarum]]''
:::"a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine, studies phenomena suggestive of the survival of consciousness after bodily death"
* [[Witch-hunt]]
:::Erasing that part in question would render it..
* [[Flying ointment]]
:::"a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine, studies phenomena."
* [[Sorginak]] (Basque witches)
:::Perhaps we should just change it to...
:::"a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine studies the possibility of survival of consciousness after bodily death."
:::Sounds Fair to me. BTW, It seems to be doubled. See below. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
===Asia===
::::That last one is much better WDM. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
====Ancient times====
The belief in witchcraft and its practice seem to have been widespread in the past. Both in ancient [[Egypt]] and in [[Babylonia]] it played a conspicuous part, as existing records plainly show. It will be sufficient to quote a short section from the [[Code of Hammurabi]] (about 2000 B.C.E.). It is there prescribed,
 
:''If a man has put a spell upon another man and it is not justified, he upon whom the spell is laid shall go to the holy river; into the holy river shall he plunge. If the holy river overcome him and he is drowned, the man who put the spell upon him shall take possession of his house. If the holy river declares him innocent and he remains unharmed the man who laid the spell shall be put to death. He that plunged into the river shall take possession of the house of him who laid the spell upon him.''<ref>''International Standard Bible Encyclopedia'' [http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/W/WITCH%3B+WITCHCRAFT/ article on Witchcraft], last accessed [[31 March]] [[2006]]. There is some discrepancy between translations; compare with that given in the ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm article on Witchcraft] (accessed [[31 March]] [[2006]]), and the [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hamframe.htm L. W. King translation] (accessed [[31 March]] [[2006]])</ref>
::::::If you all are talking about the '''lead''', I prefer VanTuky's edits. I prefer it say...
::::::"is the study of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena, such as extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death."
::::::Opposed to...
::::::"is the study of evidence for paranormal psychological processes, such as extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and phenomena suggestive of the survival of consciousness after death.".[[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
====Pakistan====
:::::::I've already changed it. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Some Pakistanis strongly believe in the concept of [[Black Magic]]. Many cases of witch-burning were reported in late 60s and early 70s. Some women were also [[honour killed]] due to their alleged practice of witchcraft.
 
In [[Pakistan]] and especially [[Karachi]], a woman seen with her feet pointed backwards and without toes is considered to be a witch or a creature of darkness. Though many have claimed to have encountered such a creature, it is widely regarded as being mythical.
==Integrating " Laboratories, organizations and journals" into article as a whole==
 
====Hebrew Bible====
The "Laboratories, organizations and journals" is already partially integrated into the article. The first paragraph of "Laboratories, organizations and journals" is the same as the 2nd paragraph of "Parapsychology today". I suggest we integrate "Laboratories, organizations and journals" into the rest of the article and delete that section all together. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In the [[Hebrew Bible]] references to witchcraft are frequent, and the strong condemnations of such practices which we read there do not seem to be based so much upon the supposition of [[fraud]] as upon the "[[abomination]]" of the magic in itself.
 
Verses such as [[Deuteronomy]] 18:11-12 and [[Exodus]] 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" provided scriptural justification for Christian [[witch hunt]]ers in the early [[Modern Age]] (see [[Christian views on witchcraft]]). The word "witch" is a translation of the Hebrew ''kashaph'', "sorceress". The Bible provides some evidence that these commandments were enforced under the Hebrew kings:
:Agreed, perhaps it could go into the "Research" lead? [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
<blockquote>"And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the [[familiar spirit]], and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?"<ref>I Samuel 28</ref> (The Hebrew verb "Hichrit" (הכרית) translated in the [[King James]] as "cut off", can also be translated as "kill wholesale" or "exterminate") </blockquote>
::It could be integrated into the entire research section. Not just the first research paragraphs. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
====New Testament====
:::I'd rather see this section stay, especially since I had plans to expand it in my original draft. But I'm willing to compromise since much of that material is present both in the article and the external links section. I would be even more agreeable if we could compromise by including a small list of links to the major journals in the external links section. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:''See also: [[Christian views on witchcraft]]''
The [[New Testament]] condemns the practice as an abomination, just as the Old Testament had ([[Epistle to the Galatians|Galatians]] 5:20, compared with [[Book of Revelation|Revelation]] 21:8; 22:15; and [[Acts of the Apostles|Acts]] 8:9; 13:6).
 
There is some debate, however, as to whether the word used in Galatians and Revelation, ''Pharmakeia'', is properly translated as "sorcery", as the word was commonly used to describe malicious use of drugs as in poisons, [[contraceptives]], and [[abortifacient]]s.
:::Ok. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
====Judaism====
::::Si, eso es bueno. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[[Judaism|Jewish]] law views the practice of witchcraft as being laden with [[idolatry]] and/or [[necromancy]]; both being serious theological and practical offenses in Judaism. According to [[Conservadox Judaism|Traditional Judaism]], it is acknowledged that while magic exists, it is forbidden to practice it on the basis that it usually involves the worship of other gods. Rabbis of the Talmud also condemned magic when it produced something other than illusion, giving the example of two men who use magic to pick cucumbers (Sanhedrin 67a). The one who creates the illusion of picking cucumbers should not be condemned, only the one who actually picks the cucumbers through magic. However, some of the Rabbis practiced "magic" themselves. For instance, Rabbah created a person and sent him to Rabbi Zera, and Rabbi Hanina and Rabbi Oshaia studied every Sabbath evening together and created a small calf to eat (Sanhedrin 65b). In these cases, the "magic" was seen more as divine miracles (i.e., coming from [[God]] rather than pagan gods) than as witchcraft.
 
====[[Islam]]====
:::::Okay, go ahead an delete/integrate the section, and I'll make a short links list and install it. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Divination and [[Magic (paranormal)#In Islam|Magic in Islam]] encompass a wide range of practices, including black magic, warding off the evil eye, the production of amulets and other magical equipment, conjuring, casting lots, astrology and physiognomy.
:::That's actually quite a long list. You should probably trim it down to about 5 links per section. 5 for "University research laboratories", 5 for "Independent research organizations" and 5 for "Journals". [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Muslims, followers of the religion of Islam, do commonly believe in magic, and explicitly forbid the practice of it (Sihr). Sihr translates as sorcery or black magic from Arabic. The best known reference to magic in Islam is the [[Sura]] [[Al-Falaq]] (meaning dawn or daybreak), which is a prayer to ward of Black Magic. <blockquote>Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of the Dawn From the mischief of created things; From the mischief of Darkness as it overspreads; From the mischief of those who practise secret arts; And from the mischief of the envious one as he practises envy. (Quran 113:1-5, translation by YusufAli)</blockquote>
::::Sorry, but simply choosing a number seems kind of arbitrary. These are the major journals that are currently in press and written in English. Instead of limiting by numbers, we should think about limiting by criteria. What criteria do you think we should use to decide what gets put in the external links list and what does not?--[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 04:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Many Muslims believe that the devils taught sorcery to mankind: <blockquote>And they follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of [[Solomon]]. Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved, teaching mankind sorcery and that which was revealed to the two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut. Nor did they (the two angels) teach it to anyone till they had said: We are only a temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the guidance of Allah). And from these two (angels) people learn that by which they cause division between man and wife; but they injure thereby no-one save by Allah's leave. And they learn that which harmeth them and profiteth them not. And surely they do know that he who trafficketh therein will have no (happy) portion in the Hereafter; and surely evil is the price for which they sell their souls, if they but knew. (al-Qur'an 2:102)</blockquote>
== Integrating Laboratories, organizations and journals into Parapsychology today ==
However, whereas performing miracles in Islamic thought and belief is reserved for only Messengers (al-Rusul - those Prophets who came with a new Revealed Text) and Prophets (al-Anbiyaa - those Prophets who came to continue the specific law and Revelation of a previous Messenger); supernatural acts are also believed to be performed by Awliyaa - the spiritually accomplished, through Ma'rifah - and referred to as Karaamaat (extraordinary acts). Disbelief in the miracles of the Prophets is considered an act of disbelief; belief in the miracles of any given pious individual is not. Neither are regarded as magic, but as signs of Allah at the hands of those close to Him that occur by His will and His alone.
 
Muslim practitioners commonly seek the help of the[[Genie|Jinn]] in magic (singular--jinni). It is a common belief that jinns can possess a human, thus requiring [[Exorcism#Exorcism in Islam|Exorcism]]. (It should be noted though, that the belief in jinn in general is part of the Muslim faith. [[Imam Muslim]] narrated the Prophet said: "Allah created the angels from light, created the jinn from the pure flame of fire, and Adam from that which was described to you (i.e., the clay.)") The differentiation between practising light and dark magic does exist. While Sihr is forbidden, the practise of light magic is seen as a somewhat pious act, since light magic uses prayers and verses from the Quran to achieve results "with Gods permission". An example of this is writing verses from the Quran with ink on a porcelain plate, washing the ink off with water and have the "patient" drink the water-ink mixture. The knowledge of which verses of the Quran to use in what way is what is considered "magic knowledge".
I'm '''Integrating Laboratories, organizations and journals''' into '''Parapsychology today'''. I noticed that the former seems to be mostly dealing with labs and journals in North America. I cut a few out and integrated it into the flow of parapsychology today. I would like to see some more cut out and others added in from other parts of the world, other than North America. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:This is fine for now. I was going to complete similar sections for Europe, Asia, and Australia, but didn't get around to it before my sandbox version was installed. Perhaps I will suggest a few when we get around to fine-tuning 'Parapsychology Today'. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::I went ahead and deleted the material, even from the Parapsychology today section. Most of that material is present elsewhere in the article, including the external links and the references. Since I wrote the material originally, I doubt that anybody else will complain about it disappearing. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Ok. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 04:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Students of the history of religion have linked several magical practises in Islam with pre-islamic Turkish and East African customs. Most notable of these customs is the [[Zar (religious custom)|Zar Ceremony]].<ref>Geister, Magier und Muslime. Dämonenwelt und Geisteraustreibung im Islam. Kornelius Hentschel, Diederichs 1997, Germany</ref><ref>Magic and Divination in Early Islam (The Formation of the Classical Islamic World) by Emilie Savage-Smith (Ed.), Ashgate Publishing 2004</ref>
== Crit part of intro==
... needs grammar cleanup. I'm not touching it myself. The third sentence (as of this timestamp) is a [[run-on sentence]] --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
===Africa===
:Done. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[[Africa]]ns have a wide range of views of traditional religions. African Christians typically accept Christian dogma as do their counterparts in [[Latin America]] and Asia. The term [[witch doctor]], often attributed to Zulu ''[[inyanga]]'', has been misconstrued to mean "a healer who uses witchcraft" rather than its original meaning of "one who diagnoses and cures maladies caused by witches". Combining [[Roman Catholic]] beliefs and practices and traditional [[West Africa]]n religious beliefs and practices are several syncretic religions in [[the Americas]], including [[Voudun]], [[Obeah]], [[Candomblé]], [[Quimbanda]] and [[Santería]].
 
In [[Southern Africa]]n traditions, there are three classifications of somebody who uses magic. The ''[[thakathi]]'' is usually improperly translated into English as "witch", and is a spiteful person who operates in secret to harm others. The ''[[sangoma]]'' is a diviner, somewhere on a par with a [[fortune teller]], and is employed in detecting illness, predicting a person's future (or advising them on which path to take), or identifying the guilty party in a crime. She also practices some degree of [[medicine]]. The ''inyanga'' is often translated as "witch doctor" (though many Southern Africans resent this implication, as it perpetuates the mistaken belief that a "witch doctor" is in some sense a ''practitioner'' of malicious magic). The ''inyanga'''s job is to heal illness and injury and provide customers with magical items for everyday use. Of these three categories the ''thakatha'' is almost exclusively female, the ''sangoma'' is usually female, and the ''inyanga'' is almost exclusively male.
== See also ==
 
In some [[Central Africa]]n areas, malicious magic users are believed by locals to be the source of [[terminal illness]] such as [[AIDS]] and [[cancer]]. In such cases, various methods are used to rid the person from the bewitching spirit, occasionally [[Physical abuse]] and [[Psychological abuse]]. Children may be accused of being witches, for example a young niece may be blamed for the illness of a relative. Most of these cases of abuse go unreported since the members of the society that witness such abuse are too afraid of being accused of being accomplices. It is also believed that witchcraft can be transmitted to children by feeding. Parents discourage their children from interacting with people believed to be witches.
I installed the following type of format on the paranormal article some time back to counter-act boring and useless bulleted see also lists. It's based on some of the see also's I've seen in FAs and resembles [[Tag (metadata)|tagging]].
 
==Russia==
<blockquote>
'''Paranormal:''' [[Cryptozoology]], [[Forteana]], [[Ghosts]], [[Mysticism]], [[New Age]], [[Occult]], [[Paranormal fiction]], [[Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs|Paranormal explanations for UFOs]] [[Parapsychology]], [[List of allegedly haunted locations|Places thought to be haunted]], [[Psychics]], [[Supernatural]], [[UFOs]], [[List of UFO sightings|UFO reported sightings]]
<br>
'''Skepticism:''' [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]], [[Debunking]], [[Hoaxes]], [[James Randi]], [[List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal|Prizes offered for paranormal proof]], [[Skepticism]]
<br>
'''Science:''' [[Anomalous phenomena]], [[Fringe science]], [[Pseudoscience]], [[Scientific method]]
</blockquote>
 
Russia, and its surrounding area for example, have, much like other cultures, their own witchcraft and superstitious tales. And again, much like other societies, these tales clash with those of the church and traditional religious thoughts. However, today, acceptance of healing practices in contemporary Russian folklore are common. By looking at the different types of superstitions then understanding their purposes we can comprehend their impact on the people and the church and can better understand the culture of Russia and its folklore.
Maybe something like this could be used here as well. There's potentially several related articles that would be appropriate to the see also section, and a format like this could include them without looking gawdy. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Casual encounters are ones of surprising and unexpectedness and puts the character at the mercy of the supernatural being. The ritual encounter however, is a more planned event, where the individual is the subject and he or she knows before hand the kind of experience they will take part in. The Russian word for witch, ведьма (ved'ma), shows exactly that (literal translation means "The one who knows.") Russia, as well as many other cultures, produces tales with both encounters. These parts of folklore including omens, guardian spirits, and fate, all have little to do with the [[Eastern Orthodox Christian theology|eastern orthodox religion]] yet seem to appear in much of the folklore of the 19th century. Visual omens, often in dreams, are well known including a gloved man indicating death, fish predicting marital luck, and children’s games foretelling marital life, fertility and even wars. Passed down are tales of how other indicators, include the crying of a baby that is not within sight, the hammering of nails off in the distance, and also ringing of the ears, can foretell different things.<ref> See also Ryan, W.F. ''The Bathhouse at Midnight: An Historical Survey of Magic and Divination in Russia'', Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999</ref>
:Looks good. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
===further More Edits references===
My edits to the first paragraph seemed to go over fairly well, so I have moved onto the second paragraph. The newest changes are significant. I tried to keep the general idea of what was there already, but there have been a lot of changes. If you don't like something, either edit it yourself, talk to me about it, or both. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
*Lindquest, Galina. Conjuring Hope: Healing and Magic in Contemporary Russia. Vol. 1. New York: Berghahn Books, 2006.
==Nealparr's changes==
*Pentikainen, Juha. "Marnina Takalo as an Individual." C. Jstor. 26 Feb. 2007.
*Pentikainen, Juha. "The Supernatural Experience." F. Jstor. 26 Feb. 2007.
*Moore, Henrietta L. and Todd Sanders 2001. Magical Interpretations, Material Realities: Modernity, Witchcraft and the Occult in Postcolonial Africa. London: Routledge.
*Worobec, Caroline. "Witchcraft Beliefs and Practices in Prerevolutionary Russia and Ukranian Villages." Jstor. 27 Feb. 2007.
 
==Neopaganism==
Instead of making a new section for each change in meaning I'd like to make (I don't see many at this point), I'm just going to lump them into a section.
Modern practices identified by their practitioners as "witchcraft" have arisen in the twentieth century which may be broadly subsumed under the heading of Neopaganism. However, as forms of Neopaganism can be quite different and have very different origins, these representations can vary considerably despite the shared name.
 
===Wicca===
*Plan to change "''methods'' of parapsychologists as a pseudoscience" to "''work'' of parapsychologists..."
{{main|Wicca}}
During the [[20th century]] interest in witchcraft in [[English language|English-speaking]] and European countries began to increase, inspired particularly by [[Margaret Murray]]'s theory of a pan-European witch-cult originally published in [[1921]], since discredited by further careful historical research.<ref>Rose, Elliot, ''A Razor for a Goat'', [[University of Toronto Press]], 1962. Hutton, Ronald, ''The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles'', [[Cambridge, Massachusetts|Cambridge, Mass.]]: Blackwell Publishers, 1993. Hutton, Ronald, ''The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft'', [[Oxford University Press]], 1999</ref> Interest was intensified, however, by [[Gerald Gardner]]'s claim in 1954 in ''Witchcraft Today'' that a form of witchcraft still existed in [[England]]. The truth of Gardner's claim is now disputed too, with different historians offering evidence for<ref>{{cite book |last=Heselton |first=Philip |authorlink=Philip Heselton |title=Wiccan Roots}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Heselton |first=Philip |authorlink=Philip Heselton |title=Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration}}</ref> or against<ref>Kelly, Aidan, "Crafting the Art of Magic," [[Llewellyn Worldwide|Llewellyn Publications]], 1991</ref><ref>Hutton, Ronald, "Triumph of the Moon," Oxford University Press, 1999.</ref> the religion's existence prior to Gardner.
 
The Wicca that Gardner initially taught was a witchcraft religion having a lot in common with Margaret Murray's hypothetically posited cult of the 1920s.<ref>Murray, Margaret A., ''The Witch-Cult in Western Europe'',Oxford University Press, 1921</ref> Indeed Murray wrote an introduction to Gardner's ''Witchcraft Today'', in effect putting her stamp of approval on it. Wicca is now practised as a religion of an [[Initiation|initiatory]] [[secret society]] nature with positive ethical principles, organised into autonomous [[coven]]s and led by a High Priesthood. In recent years however, the Wiccan system(s) of beliefs have additionally evolved many individuals who maitain no affiliations, other than claiming filial ties with others of the same beliefs. Wiccan writings and ritual show borrowings from a number of sources including 19th and 20th century [[ceremonial magic]], the medieval grimoire known as the [[Key of Solomon]], [[Aleister Crowley]]'s [[Ordo Templi Orientis]] and pre-Christian religions.<ref>Hutton, R.,''The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft'', Oxford University Press, pp. 205-252, 1999</ref><ref>Kelly, A.A., ''Crafting the Art of Magic, Book I: a History of Modern Witchcraft, 1939-1964'', Minnesota: Llewellyn Publications, 1991</ref><ref>Valiente, D., ''The Rebirth of Witchcraft'', London: Robert Hale, pp. 35-62, 1989</ref> Both men and women are equally termed "witches." They practice a form of [[Duotheism|duotheistic]] [[universalism]].
Why? Many of the critics who feel this way are referring to the work in general as pseudoscience, or the conclusions as pseudoscience, or the ideas as pseudoscientific, etc. even when they think the methods themselves are scientific. Taken as a whole it's pseudoscientific, according to them. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Since Gardner's death in 1964 the Wicca that he claimed he was initiated into has attracted many initiates, becoming the largest of the various witchcraft traditions in the Western world, and has influenced various occult movements and groups. In particular it has inspired a large movement of "sole practitioners", who are not initiated into the original lineage but live according to practices and beliefs that are in keeping with the original tenets of the religion, most notably the "Three Laws".
:Sounds about right. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
===Judeo-Paganism===
==Third paragraph of intro, first sentence...==
Some [[Neopagan]]s study and practice forms of [[Magic (paranormal)|magery]] based on a [[syncretism]] between classical [[Kabbalah|Jewish mysticism]] and modern witchcraft. (See "The Witches Qabalah", in the list of references below.) These practitioners tend to identify with [[Judeo-Paganism]] (also known as Jewish Paganism), and/or practice Jewitchery, or Jewish Witchcraft. These individuals and groups either borrow from existing Jewish magical traditions or reconstruct rituals based on Judaism and NeoPaganism. Several references on these subjects include [[Ellen Cannon Reed]]'s book "The Witches Qabala: The Pagan Path and the Tree of Life", "The Hebrew Goddess", by [[Raphael Patai]], and the forthcoming book "Magickal Judaism: Blending Pagan and Jewish Practice", by Jennifer Hunter.
 
===Reconstructive===
...needs to be worked out here. Editing it too many times could look like an edit war when all we're trying to do is make the sentence clear. I personally am not into the word "sometimes" because it's not like Hyman and Alcock only criticize it some of the time. Something like "and others" needs to be there because of non-scientists like Randi. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
{{main|Polytheistic reconstructionism}}
The basis of various historical forms of witchcraft find their roots in pre-Christian cultural practices. There has been a strong movement to recreate pre-Christian traditions where the old forms have been lost for various reasons, including practices such as [[Divination]], [[Seid]] and various forms of [[Shamanism]]. There have been a number of pagan practitioners such as [[Paul Huson]] claiming inheritance to non-Gardnerian traditions as well<ref>[[Paul Huson|Huson, Paul]] ''[[Mastering Witchcraft]]: a Practical Guide for Witches, Warlocks, and Covens'', New York: G.P.Putnams Sons, 1970.</ref>.
 
== Witches in popular culture ==
==Good article nomination review==
=== Movies ===
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, I found some issues that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}, compares against the [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?|six good article criteria]]:
Many movies contain witches as a plot element for example ''[[Practical Magic]]'', ''[[The Craft (film)|The Craft]]'', ''[[Hocus Pocus (film)|Hocus Pocus]]'', [[The Blair Witch Project]], and ''[[Harry Potter (film)|Harry Potter]]''. These movies generally include stereotypical use of [[Brooms]], [[Wands]], and [[Cauldrons]].
 
=== Television ===
:'''1. Well written?:'''
Many TV shows have also revolved their stories in witchcraft. The most famous were [[Bewitched]], [[Charmed]], [[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]] (in the character of [[Willow Rosenberg|Willow]]) and [[Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (TV series)|Sabrina, the Teenage Witch]].
::*<s>''labs'' - informal, use laboratories</s>
::*<s>''been circulated in mainstream journals'' - "published" is better</s>
::*<s>''Parapsychology has met criticism by some in the [[scientific community]], as well as others.'' - this sentence is unclear.</s>
::*<s>''Parapsychology was coined'' - a word is "coined" (although this phrase is a cliche) but a field is "started"</s>
::*<s>''The early membership of the SPR included philosophers, scholars, scientists, educators and politicians of the day'' - How could its membership have included people who had lived at other times? Cut "of the day"</s>
::*<s>''standard laboratory procedures for the testing of ESP evolved'' - A good general rule when writing about science is to avoid using technical terms to mean something distinct from their accepted meanings - "were developed" would be better.</s>
::*<s>''Rhine established and popularized the word "parapsychology," which Max Dessoir had coined over forty years earlier"'' - He didn't invent this word, so what is meant by him "establishing" it? How is this different from "popularize"?</s>
;;*<s>''Levy's fraud was noted in Time Magazine (August 26, 1974)'' - Convert to a reference.</s>
::*<s>''Critics contend that meta-analysis is basically a post hoc data analysis and that evaluation of the methodological quality of a study after it is done and the results are known can create opportunity for biases to affect the analysis, and that various strategies, methods and criteria can be used, which can provide different outcomes and an opportunity for selecting outcomes which are consistent with the expectations of the analysist.'' - This sentence is over-long, contains multiple parentheses and thus becomes unclear. Break into two or three short, clear sentences.</s>
:'''2. Factually accurate?:'''
::*<s>''the study of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena'' - I don't think this is true, might it be better to say ''the examination of possible paranormal psychological phenomena'' as this field does not limit itself to evidence for these phenomena, it also studies evidence against these phenomena.</s>
::*<s>''The scientific reality of parapsychological phenomena'' - There is no such thing as "scientific reality", scientists live in the same reality as everybody else! :)</s>
:'''3. Broad in coverage?:''' OK
:'''4. Neutral point of view?:'''
::*''<s>The cumulative data was interpreted by some researchers'' and ''The meta-analysis was comprised of 380 studies, which some researchers say '' - According to the NPOV policy, when making statements about groups, it is necessary to state how large these groups are in relation to the rest of the population in question. As no other interpretations are reported, is this the only significant opinion of these results?</s>
:::*Looking at the article, this last point could be easily fixed by stating who you are citing for this opinion. Just a matter of noting who was the lead author of the paper that made this interpretation. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:'''5. Article stability?''' OK
:'''6. Images?:''' OK
 
=== Books ===
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be [[Wikipedia:Good article candidates|reviewed again]]. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the most famous series, the [[Harry Potter]] books, are set in a world populated by Witches and Wizards.
 
Another rather popular [[Book series|series of books]] that deal with witches are the Sweep or [[Sweep (book series)|Wicca series]] by [[Cate Tiernan]]. The series contains fourteen books and one novel that follow the story of Morgan Rowlands, a girl who finds out she is descended from a long line of witches. Along with Morgan, other characters develop their own role in Wicca, and relationships. The books deal with teen problems, and many teens can relate to the stories on countless levels.
::Thanks for the feedback Tim! We'll get right on it. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Terry Pratchett's Discworld series also features witches significantly.
:Congratulations! Nice work everybody. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] 16:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 
=== Recent history ===
::Thanks! Do you do FA reviews as well? or have any recommendations for that? --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 18:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Especially in media aimed at children (such as [[fairy tale]]s), witches are often depicted as wicked old women with wrinkled skin and [[pointy hat]]s, clothed in black or purple, with [[wart]]s on their noses and sometimes long [[claw]]-like fingernails. Like the three "[[Weird Sisters]]" from [[Macbeth]], they are often portrayed as concocting potions in large cauldrons. Witches typically ride through the air on a [[broomstick]] as in the [[Harry Potter]] universe or in more modern spoof versions, a [[vacuum cleaner]] as in the [[Hocus Pocus]] universe. One of the most famous recent depictions is the [[Wicked Witch of the West]], from [[L. Frank Baum]]'s ''[[The Wonderful Wizard of Oz]]''.
 
===ChangesSee made=also==
*[[Astrology]], reading of [[horoscopes]]
*[[Aura (paranormal)|Auras]]
*[[Balthasar Bekker]]
*[[Catalan mythology about witches]]
*[[Divination]] - by [[tarot]], [[runes]], etc.
*[[Execution of Witches]]
*[[Healing]]
*[[Kalku]]
*[[List of fictional witches]]
*[[List of magical terms and traditions]]
*[[Lysa Hora (paranormal)]]
*[[Madonna Oriente]]
*[[Magician (fantasy)|Magician]]
*[[Meditation]]
*[[Osculum infame]]
*[[Paganism]]
*[[Poppet]]s
*[[Sadducismus Triumphatus]]
*[[Scrying]]
*[[séance]]s; using [[ouija boards]]
*[[Seid (shamanic magic)]]
*[[Shamanism]]
*[[Sorginak]] (Basque witches)
*[[Voodoo]]
*[[Walpurgis Night]]
*[[Warlock]]
*[[Wicca]]
*[[Witch doctor]]
*[[Witch-hunt]]
*[[Witch of Endor]]
*[[Wyrd]]
*[[Zar (religious custom)]]
 
{{witchcraft}}
*Lab/Labs were changed to laboratory/laboratories. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
*Circulated changed to published. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
*"Coined" fixed. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
*Third paragraph of intro clarified. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
*Deleted "of the day" [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
*Fixed established/popularized. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
*Fixed problematic wording and changed to "The reality of parapsychological phenomena and the scientific validity of parapsychological research is a matter of continued criticism." from "The scientific reality of..." [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
*Concerning Levy's mention in Time magazine, It was referenced from the source right above it. I just formated the source and moved it 1 sentence down to source the entire paragraph. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
*Broke up overly long sentence and converted into 2 sentences. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
*Fixed the part about Rhine's adoption of the term parapsychology, bulleted under #1 above. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 03:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 
===Questions= Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
When you say the sentence is unclear, what specifically about it needs clarifying? Is it the "others" part, or who the "some" in the scientific community is? [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
==External links==
It is not specific and is poorly-worded, it might be better as just - "Parapsychology has been criticized by many scientists and psychologists." [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
<!--
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE ADDING LINKS HERE.
 
Due to the rising popularity of Withcraft, this article runs the risk of becoming nothing more than a links page to every Web site vaguely connected with Withcraft, even if that Web site has a rather limited audience or deals only with relatively limited subject matter. Many links have already been removed.
:Yes, much better. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
If you would like to add a link here, please read the guidelines on linking and then discuss the merits of adding your link on this article's talk page. If you don't there is a strong possibility your link will be removed. Thank-you.
About the basic definition: I think something more like ''the study of paranormal psychological phenomena'' would be appropriate. Saying possible is imo unnecessary, as the intro goes on to point out that concrete evidence proving the phenomena exists has not occurred, and paranormal is disambiguated (same thing there). [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Linking guidelines:
:Sounds OK to me. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
 
Article talk page:
:::We've experienced disputes in the past over the definition of "Many". Some individuals believe that "many" is a vague POV term and frequently change it to "some". I fear that if we say that "Many scientists" without providing a general number, we might have the same problems in the future. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Witchcraft
 
Your consideration is appreciated. Blessings.
::::I feel like the notability and detailed nature of the criticism as outlined in the article basically makes the fact that there are many, rather than just a few, scientific critics a truism. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 
-->
:::In general you can avoid the "many/some" argument by citing a leading proponent of any controversial view "Scientists such as Bob Smith say.." or "In a rebuttal of this view, the psychologist Pete Brown wrote that.." This makes a statement much less controversial and also reads better as it is more specific. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] 23:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
{{commonscat|Witches}}
*[http://personalwebs.oakland.edu/~dow/courses/an271/bswmr.html Bibliography for the Study of Magic Witchcraft and Religion, James Dow, Professor of Anthropology at Oakland University]
* [http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFBooks/TrevorRoper0256/Crisis17thC/PDFs/0098_Pt04_Chap3.pdf Some historical notes on the witch-craze from historian Trevor Roper]
*[http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=325263 Kabbalah On Witchcraft - A Jewish view (Audio)] chabad.org
*[http://www.oldwitchcraft.org Old Witchcraft] by Bob Andrews
*[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=220&letter=W&search=Witchcraft Jewish Encyclopedia: Witchcraft]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm Witchcraft in the Catholic Encyclopedia on (New Advent)]
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17203 Witchcraft and Devil Lore in the Channel Islands], 1886, by John Linwood Pitts, from [[Project Gutenberg]]
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17209 A Treatise of Witchcraft], 1616, by Alexander Roberts, from Project Gutenberg
*[http://www.witchvox.com The Witches' Voice] 1997-2007 The Witches' Voice Inc
*[http://www.hedgewytchery.com/indexb.html] Traditional British witchcraft site.
[[Category:Witchcraft|*]]
[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Anthropology of religion]]
[[Category:Magic]]
 
{{Link FA|uk}}
::::The problem is, There's no one specific notable scientist opponent of parapsychology or it's methods or conclusions. There are dozens that come to mind but we can't cite all of them. We need to just state that "some" scientists. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
<!-- interwiki -->
 
[[bn:ডাইনীবিদ্যা]]
:::::There's a handful of "strong" opponents however. Alcock is the notable leading scientist in opposition to parapsychology. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[[ca:Bruixa (mitologia)]]
 
[[cs:Čarodějnice]]
:::Why is Alcock "the" notable leading scientist opposed to parapsychology? Why not Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, Blackmore, Shermer, Asimov, or Sagan? All of these people are/were strong critics of parapsychology and all of which are probably more notable. We can't limit it to one single person. We should either list a few of the MOST notable, say "some" or say "many". [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 02:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[[da:Heks]]
 
[[de:Hexe]]
::::He's the guy that keeps showing up in all these sources. Those other guys (as far as I've seen) don't show up half as much. Or even if you said "Scientists such as Holmes, Watson, and Moriarty", that'd be fine too. I don't know, Annalisa would probably know better than I. I'll skate on the idea that if you add up all the people who have ever said something bad about parapsychology, it probably counts up to the ambiguous "many". I only get concerned when the words "most scientists" are used. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 03:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[[et:Nõidus]]
 
[[es:Brujería]]
::I don't believe that the fact that Alcock appears in most of the referenced sources automatically means he should be "the notable leading scientist" on the issue while they are so many more notable scientists who fit the bill. I do BTW agree that "many scientists" is fine. I just hope it doesn't result in edit wars. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 03:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[[fr:Sorcière]]
 
[[gd:Buidseachd]]
<s>Number 4 is difficult. Here's the problem: the alternative view to the "interpretation" is all the criticisms that are in the criticism section (without rebuttal). It's difficult to gauge "how large these groups are in relation to the rest of the population in question". The population in question would be those familiar with the study. On one hand you have the researchers themselves and the other scientists who support the interpretation, and on the other hand you have those scientists who don't support the interpretation. I'm not sure how that would be worded in proportion when we don't even know how many are actually familiar with the study. We could say many scientists familiar with the studies support the interpretation and many don't, but that's not really imparting anything more useful than what is already there. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)</s> Tim figured this out for us. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[[hr:Vještice (mitologija)]]
 
[[it:Stregoneria]]
== FA Nomination ==
[[he:מכשפה]]
 
[[nl:Heks (persoon)]]
Does this article meet the criteria to be a Featured Article? I believe it probably does, nominating it for Featured Article might also bring some more editors to help improve it. I've added it for FA nomination here [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parapsychology]]. Please add input and help progress the FA review to help it become a Featured Article ASAP. If you believe it's FA criteria then show your support by saying '''Support''' and then giving a reason. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 21:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[[ja:魔女]]
 
[[nrm:Chorchi]]
:I don't think it's quite there, but I'm looking forward to input from others who have worked on FA articles before. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 01:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[[pl:Czarownica]]
 
[[pt:Bruxaria]]
== To Annalisa Ventola ==
[[ro:Vrajitoare]]
 
[[ru:Ведьма]]
Annalisa Ventola, You should probably refrain from making major edits like this one [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parapsychology&diff=145773050&oldid=145718662]] without providing any info on the talk page about it prior to doing it or even leaving an edit summary. The article has just been promoted to GA status and the last thing we want is someone making major changes to it and igniting an edit war. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[[sr:Вештица9]]
 
[[fi:Noituus]]
:I'm shifting things around and tightening up the language for the sake of readability issues. If you have serious issues with any specific change, you are welcome to improve upon it. I'm sure that a consensus can be reached. The GA article tag still invites us to make improvements. That is what I am attempting to do. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[[sv:Häxkonst]]
 
[[tr:Cadı]]
::While so far I have been fine with the changes and GA status doesn't entail static articles, I completely agree with WDM on this one. For an article that has been recognized as GA-quality and is not under the [[WP:BLP]], nothing could so drastically important enough to not to wait for at least a nominal response. And imo, completely re-structuring and renaming that sub-section is not a minor change by even the broadest definition. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[[uk:Відьма]]
 
[[yi:כישוף]]
:::I did not say anything about minor changes above. Please do not put words in my mouth.
[[zh:女巫]]
 
:::It was not appropriate to nominate this article for GA status when other editors expressed that they were not done working with it. I've said repeatedly that I wanted to work on the criticism section. I made an effort to do this for weeks in the draft state with WDM'a cooperation, only to find my requests for changes repeatedly ignored. The heading "Selection bias" was created without consensus, the new heading more accurately reflects what was there before...better yet, it actually describes the text underneath it. This article is not done. I'm not done. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::As I just said, and you have pointed out, GA doesn't equal "don't touch". What it does mean is that the content was approved as being very well-written, so any major changes are not absolutely, immmediately vital. This isn't some stub needing drastic measures and bold editing. I feel this way irregardless of the status of the article, but obviously other, outside editors agree with me because of the approval. The point is Annalisa, whether GA or not, ''drastic, sweeping changes without reason are quite likely to be reverted without reason''. So if you want stability and to see your changes take effect, then participate in what is fundamentally a collaborative process, not a solo one. We're not asking you to refrain from making changes, we're asking you to talk to us about your changes like a reasonable person. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::I'm getting tired of your sweeping generalizations. I forgot to leave an edit summary for '''ONE''' of my changes today. And being a relative newcomer to this article, you are not one to speak of the collaborative process here. You seem to have little regard for the processes that went into getting the article where it is today...or the roles that other editors played in constructing it and the draft proceeding it. Additionally, I am getting a little tired of your uncivil remarks, and I don't appreciate the taunting message that you placed on my talk page today. Unless you decide to reaquaint yourself with a few key policies here at Wikipedia, most especially [[WP:OWN]] and [[WP:CIVIL]], I'm going to cease responding to your comments. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::::It is, of course, your perogative whether you discuss anything. But this isn't just about one edit. I am not the one who brought up this issue, so labeling me a rude newbie isn't a response to the issue at hand. Asking for at least a simple edit summary on bold edits isn't rude or ludicrous. As to the charge of trying to own the article, for the third time now I remind you that you free to make any edits you please, irregardless of GA status. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::I think that we've all been editing this article long enough to know what would or wouldn't cause potential disputes. If you plan to make an edit that you think may cause a dispute, please discuss the edit on the talk page prior to making it. This is the only way to avoid these arguments. Simply outline what the change is you plan to make and wait for a day or two for discussions prior to making it. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Like I said before we put it up for GA, it's likely to get ripped apart by editors not even involved in the article currently. Now that it's up for FA status, it will probably undergo even more comprehensive changes. My feeling is that as long as the edits aren't really bad edits we need to relax and let the process happen. I'd like to tighten some things up myself but don't have the time right now to do anything worthwhile. I go with the [[WP:1RR]] myself, meaning that I'll try something on my own, but if it's not well received then I'm open to discussion. I feel that's a healthy interpretation of [[WP:BOLD]] --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 01:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::The problem is that it's hard to keep up with a dozen new edits and determine what exactly the changers were. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 01:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::::Now that I agree with completely. I use the "history"'s diffs but they are so hard to read at times. Sometimes I get what the changes were, but I have to use the "find on page" feature of my browser just to see <u>where</u> they were. MediaWiki really needs to come up with a better way of following changes. I don't personally have the time to re-read the article constantly just to see if it still reads ok. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::It appears that the only dispute right now is over whether it was okay for me to make a bunch of edits. Nobody is complaining about the actual content of what I did. Read over the criticism section. Like it? Great. Don't? Change it. This is the encylopedia that anyone can edit, so please don't waste my time by asking me to justify myself for...um...editing. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
That was a section that I had raised concerns about previously. We changed it, together and in public, and now you've reverted it all. Since we actually discussed this beforehand, and since I explained my edits beforehand, would you please explain yours? <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:No, we didn't change it together. WDM did. My requests for changes were promptly ignored. Want an explanation of what I did? Look at the page history. Look at the diffs. I made sure that paragraphs were coherent and about a single topic. I made word changes for clarification. I made sure that there was a clear distinction between concepts like 'experiments' and 'meta-analysis' (i.e. a meta-analysis is not an experiment). What I did not do was add or delete any sources, nor add or delete any of the general topics fo discussion. If I had, I probably would've discussed it here first. Again, if you have a problem with the criticism section, could we discuss your issues about specific changes, rather than the fact that I had the audacity to actually make some? --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::I discussed my specific issues on WDM's version's talk page awhile back. I will kindly refer you there to see some very specific comments that are once again pertinent to the version you've created (title of the section, etc.). <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 05:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Was this about your heading on Selection Bias? If I remember correctly, NealParr, VanTucky, and I all opposed the heading, but WDM went and changed it to what you wanted anyway. If you want to revisit this issue, let's create an new subject line and discuss it. Perhaps a straw poll would be useful. Is there anything else you want to change? If so, go right ahead and do it. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 05:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::You need to realize that it's difficult for us to determine the changes once they are made, and to determine what actually changed. It helps everyone if you simply post what you're planning to change prior to changing it and get an idea of how we all feel. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
 
:::Here's how to determine changes once they are made: First, (if you're on the talk page) scroll to the top of the page. Then click (with the left hand mouse button) the tab that says "article." When that page loads, click the tab that says "history." Then click the radio buttons of the two versions you want to compare. When you get the page -called a "diff" in Wikipedia speak- You can see the changes, because they will be in different colors. It's really easy once you get the hang of it- Wikimedia has been made pretty easy to use, although it still has some flaws.
 
:::It's [[WP:BOLD| good to edit here]]. That's what Wikipedia is about, making the articles better by editing them. '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::I'm having trouble following it too. I'd like to see more descriptive edit summaries. Some of the recent changes have no summaries at all or has "doesn't change the meaning" as a summary or "like this better". Those don't really tell someone scanning the history what actual changes were made. Users are forced to look at the diffs to see what changes were made. I know, I'm guilty of it too, but there's a lot going on and it's hard to follow. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 05:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::Those of you making these recent edits should probably be a little less bold and a little more <u>careful</u>. I've had to correct a few grammar mistakes since the newer edits were made. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 11:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::VanTucky, please compose your comments off-line, tracking through a half-dozen after-thought edits of the same entry is annoying. It is hard enough to constructively track all of these comments without that.
 
:::I have no idea why you all are so anxious to get GA or Fa or whatever status it is when the article has just recently been given back to the public. I think you have added an unnecessary complexity to achieving stability here and the degree of your attack on Annalisa Ventola for just doing what editors are supposed to do seems to be more a reflection of your desire to get an award than to produce a stable article. I for one want to see what she has to say, as I expect she knows a little more about the subject than the rest of us. [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
(unindent) Annalisa, '''no one''' thinks it's not "okay for you to make a bunch of edits". It's about discussing the potentially controversial edits so other editors don't have to ramble through the history diffs trying to surmise what you were doing and why. That's all. And none of us are perfect, I'm certainly still working on that. As to the content issue in Criticism: yes, I agree about with changes to Selection Bias on structural grounds. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:The point here is that my edits were not controversial. Nobody has complained about the actual edits that I made. That's because all I did was make the criticism section stronger and better using my expertise and my skills as a writer. Fundamentally, it's still the same criticism section, just clearer and more organized. Unless somebody has a specific complaint about the actual content of my contributions, this entire debate seems to be about whether or not it was okay for me to essentially do a copy edit job without seeking permission. I'm not going to work that way. If and when I decide to insert or delete something controvesial, it will be unambiguous, and it will be discussed on this talk page first. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::I think it's pretty clear that WDM disagrees with your edits, or at least finds them controversial. But once again, it's not about whether or not it's okay for you to make edits. It's about discussing them. But we're going in circles here. I'm not going to go on any further. Let's just move on, as I'm sure there other changes you're dying to make. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::WDM hasn't specified any particular problems with my edits. When/if he does, I'll be happy to work with him to reach consensus. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 18:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::Per my observations brought up on WDM's draft's talk page, I have updated the section. I have modified some sentences, rearranged the content, and changed the title to something more indicative of the content. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
There's nothing wrong with editing directly. The changes we've been making should not be controversial- for instance, the current article had reincarnation defined as survival of death. Such blaring mistakes should not need any prior notice of correction. '''I suggested this be changed before the draft went live, and the suggestion was ignored.'''
 
Further, the gradual changes we have been making are not hard to follow on the diffs. You don't have to go one diff at a time. '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::You weren't ignored Martin, Just overlooked. I was getting a lot of requests and it wasn't easy to keep up with them all. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 01:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Ok, thanks (: '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 03:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== reincarnation def ==
 
I've simplified the wording of the definition to read: ''The rebirth of a soul or other non-physical aspect of human consciousness in a new physical body after death.'' [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:Works for me. In fact, this is a good example of what I'm talking about when I say the same thing can be said in less words. These types of changes can tighten the article up considerably. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 22:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::Much better. '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
==Main graphic==
 
We need a better main graphic if this is going to be FA some day. I'm going to make a custom one to release to the public ___domain. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 22:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:Cool! '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Much agreed. Thanks a bundle Neal. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 23:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::I have no idea what would be an ideal photo. Perhaps something like a pendulum and an out of focus man behind the pendulum trying to alter it's trajectory in some way to reflect the PEAR studies. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 01:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::It'll be a few days before I can get to it, but what I'll probably make is a 3-D [[Computer-generated imagery|CGI]] of two people separated by a wall, like separate cubicles, one of them focused on a teddy bear and the other drawing a stick-figure teddy bear on paper. Or something like that. Showing motion, like a pendulum swinging would be harder to translate in a static graphic. The tag line will read "artist rendition of a parapsychology experiment" so as not to create any confusion that it is a real experiment. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 07:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::Actually, would there be POV issues on an artist's rendition? Like should the guy be drawing a stick-figure of an apple if the other guy is holding a teddy bear? : ) Or is it neutral enough to make it look like it could be interpreted as either a bear or a dog?
:::::--'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 07:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
I don't think graphics count. Then don't in other articles. And, we have a pic of Randi. '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 08:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::::Don't stress about it Neal, an "artist's rendition" is fine. Anything you can do would be welcome, as the images are pretty spare in the article as is. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 08:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::If you're able to make an adequate 3d rendering of such an experiment and it's allowed to be used in the article then just make what the person is writing scribble and don't actually picture it. Just make it too vague of an image to be interpreted as anything. For instance fuzzy lines or simply a blank page where the person is in the process of drawing something. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 08:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::The drawing would have to resemble what the other guy is looking at to make sense. If we can't do that we'll have to do something else. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 16:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::I think the point would be made just fine without showing the drawing on the page, so long as the caption linked down to the right section. Alternatively, that Nature article had a photo from the PEAR lab with randomness-generating machines. One of those might make for a really cool graphic. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 19:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::::To use that image and comply with [[fair use]] laws, it would almost definitely have to be placed directly adjacent to the text mentioning the PEAR lab. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::::::I meant a 3D mockup of a similar device based on that image; sorry for my ambiguity. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::::::I think I'll pass on that idea if it has to be like that and go with something else. If you can't show what the guy is drawing for POV reasons, then it'll end up looking like your typical office. One guy in a cubicle doodling when he should be working and another guy in a different cubicle having an apparently unhealthy obsession with teddy bears. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== Logical Fallacy ==
 
I would like to see the following sentence removed from the criticism section:
 
"Assuming that something paranormal is occurring when other normal processes could account for the effect is considered a [[logical fallacy]]."
 
It is certainly a true statement, and I have no problem with it as it stands alone. But how does it apply to the field of parapsychology in this context? Who is doing the assuming? Generally, parapsychologists prefer the term 'psi' because that term does not assume that something paranormal is going on. Others prefer the term 'anomalous'. When it comes to the type of research being discussed in this section, parapsychologists are not assuming that there is something paranormal is occuring, just that something is occuring that is currently unexplained by science (whether that process is 'normal' or not).--[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:The question is, is it cited by a source? If so, it should stay as a valid point of basic criticism related to a cognitive presumption of the existence of psi. If it's not [[WP:V|verifiable]] with any of the article's sources, then remove it. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 19:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::The reference points to the skeptics dictionary, and I question if that site meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Most of the article uses very strong sources, this reference is a point of weakness. Also, if you look at the article, it begins by citing proper definitions of 'psi' (a term used to identify anomalous outcomes without attributing it to a paranormal cause), but then sets up something called the 'psi assumption' stating the opposite...that parapsychologists say that psi = paranomal causation. Additionally, I'm not sure how the editor who put in the article derived this statement from the source.
 
::But the bigger issue that this sentence lacks a context and doesn't quite fit with the rest of the paragraph. Who is doing the assuming? What kind of research? --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:It's a violation of Occam's razor, to be sure, but I don't know about it being a logical fallacy. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::I agree. Perhaps then, a discussion of Occam's razor would be more appropriate? --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::I think Occam's Razor is what they are talking about anyway. A change seems to be in order. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 20:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:No, It's a fallacy alright. It would probably be an [[Appeal to probability]].
:This has the [[argument form]]:
:Possibly P.
:Therefore, P.
:Or, Possibly paranormal.
:Therefore, Paranormal.
:[[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 20:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::The fallacy that the SkepDic says is either [[begging the question]] or [[affirming the consequent]] and is referring to "psi" (actual wording, 7th paragrapah from the top, including the red part [http://www.skepdic.com/psiassumption.html]). The wording of this line should reflect that instead of the nondescript [[logical fallacy]] and paranormal. It also doesn't say anything about "normal processes" in the paragraph dealing with fallacies. Other problems with the wording include attribution, thus we reword it to:
 
::"Assuming that psi is occurring is considered by skeptics to either be [[begging the question]] or [[affirming the consequent]]."
::--'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::I'm liking this better already, but how do we work this statement into a paragraph about statistical deviation? The current sentence that we're trying to replace seems to come out of nowhere, and this version (although much more specific and with better wording) would also come out of nowhere. --[[User:Annalisa_Ventola|<span style="color:#000000">Annalisa Ventola</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Annalisa Ventola|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Annalisa_Ventola|Contribs]])</sub> 21:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::The section currently reads (in part): "''Ray Hyman contends that even if experiments could be made to reproduce the findings of certain parapsychological studies under specificed conditions, this would be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated.[41] Assuming that something paranormal is occurring when other normal processes could account for the effect is considered a logical fallacy.[42]''"
::::How about changing it to: "''Ray Hyman contends that, even if experiments could be made to reproduce the findings of certain parapsychological studies under specificed conditions, this would be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated.[41] Invoking the paranormal to explain such findings when normal processes could account for them is consistent with logical fallacies such as [[begging the question]] or [[affirming the consequent]].[42]''"
::::It makes the transition obvious, and introduces the fallacies. We should probably explain how it could fit both of those fallacies, too, which I can do. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Ok. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::::Sounds good. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 22:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
"''Ray Hyman contends that, even if experiments could be made to reproduce the findings of certain parapsychological studies under specificed conditions, this would be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated.[41] Invoking the paranormal to explain such findings when normal processes might someday be found to account for them is consistent with logical fallacies such as [[begging the question]] or [[affirming the consequent]].[42]''"
 
This makes the situation clear. I'll have to review the source to make sure that the logical fallacies are actually mentioned in it. If they are not, then this is OR, and we can't do that. '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 22:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::I don't like that one. It gives the impression that normal processes can't already account for them. [[User:Wikidudeman|'''<font color="blue">Wikidudeman</font>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Wikidudeman|(talk)]]</sup> 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::And the other gives the impression that normal processes "''could''" account for them. Whereas this one only says that normal processes may be found in the future. This is in fact the state of things, as no normal processes have been found. Try:
 
"''Ray Hyman contends that, even if experiments could be made to reproduce the findings of certain parapsychological studies under specificed conditions, this would be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated.[41] Invoking the paranormal to explain such findings when it may be possible to account for them in terms of normal processes is consistent with logical fallacies such as [[begging the question]] or [[affirming the consequent]].[42]''" '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:The problem is that the sentences (yours, mine, and the current one in the article) are worded wrongly. Invoking the paranormal to explain such findings when normal processes could account for them is an Occam's razor violation (i.e., don't postulate more entities than necessary). At the same time, assuming that psi exists is [[begging the question]], while assuming that "if psi exists then we'll see deviations from the norm, and we see deviations from the norm, therefore psi exists" is [[affirming the consequent]]. Trying to roll all 3 critiques into one sentence is perilously difficult; each concept deserves its own sentence (the source backs the latter 2 claims, but I'll have to find another re: Occam's razor). <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 23:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 
::Right. I'm guessing, but I think Hyman is talking only about the psi assumption. Thus, that's all we can talk about. A different criticism is Occam's razor, which could be sourced to Alcock I think. I've never heard the other one, re logical fallacies. '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 00:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 
:::Occam's razor isn't immune to violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Controversial_aspects_of_the_Razor], but more to the point, we only follow the sources. This source doesn't mention occam's razor. The only ''proper'' wording is based on the source. --'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 01:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
::::(Oops, should read closer next time, you guys are talking about adding another source.)--'''[[User:Nealparr|<span style="color:#000">Nealparr</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Nealparr|talk to me]])</sup> 02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 
 
::::Glancing over the source, it looks like it might support the first sentence.
 
'''Ray Hyman contends that, even if experiments could be made to reproduce the findings of certain parapsychological studies under specific conditions, this would not justify concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated, because to demonstrate psi conclusively requires a theory as well as data.[42]''' Now, that it can support. I don't see the rest of it. Here's the paragraph:
 
::::::::Again, I do not have time to develop another part of this story. Because even if Utts and her colleagues are correct and we were to find that we could reproduce the findings under specified conditions, this would still be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. This is because the current claim is based entirely upon a negative outcome -- the sole basis for arguing for ESP is that extra-chance results can be obtained that apparently cannot be explained by normal means. But an infinite variety of normal possibilities exist and it is not clear than one can control for all of them in a single experiment. You need a positive theory to guide you as to what needs to be controlled, and what can be ignored. Parapsychologists have not come close to this as yet. '''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Martinphi|Talk]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Contribs]])</sub> 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)