Talk:Parapsychology

::::::::The journal is impeccable as a source, and that is the main criterion for determining the suitability of a source. If you’re going to say this or that author needs to be excluded for whatever reason, you’re essentially saying that your own personal judgment on an individual as a Wikipedia editor supersedes that of the journal itself. Furthermore, to say that Utts can’t be included because “she is a parapsychologist” (what makes her a parapsychologist? because she has done work on paraspychology; her training is in statistics) is patently absurd; it would be like saying you can’t include any articles on biology written by biologists in the Wikipedia biology article because they’re compromised by the fact that they’re biologists. So there could never possibly be any reliable evidence, because as soon as someone does work on parapsychology they become a parapsychologist, and therefore are unreliable.

::::::::The journal is impeccable as a source, and that is the main criterion for determining the suitability of a source. If you’re going to say this or that author needs to be excluded for whatever reason, you’re essentially saying that your own personal judgment on an individual as a Wikipedia editor supersedes that of the journal itself. Furthermore, to say that Utts can’t be included because “she is a parapsychologist” (what makes her a parapsychologist? because she has done work on paraspychology; her training is in statistics) is patently absurd; it would be like saying you can’t include any articles on biology written by biologists in the Wikipedia biology article because they’re compromised by the fact that they’re biologists. So there could never possibly be any reliable evidence, because as soon as someone does work on parapsychology they become a parapsychologist, and therefore are unreliable.

::::::::I’m glad you linked that other conversation because it goes to show just how virulently committed you are to excluding the minority point of view. The very first sentence of the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia neutrality article]] “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” As you define it any attempt to include something doesn't represent the majority view is “shoehorning it in.” [[User:PaulB223|PaulB223]] ([[User talk:PaulB223|talk]]) 14:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

::::::::I’m glad you linked that other conversation because it goes to show just how virulently committed you are to excluding the minority point of view. The very first sentence of the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia neutrality article]] “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” As you define it any attempt to include something doesn't represent the majority view is “shoehorning it in.” [[User:PaulB223|PaulB223]] ([[User talk:PaulB223|talk]]) 14:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

:::::::::What you are writing here bares little resemblance to the [[WP:RS]] guideline, which clearly states that the author matters as much as a publishing venue, and that no source is 'impreccable' in all contexts. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 15:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)