Talk:Telepathy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Telepathy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Paranormal B‑class

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Parapsychology Unassessed (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Skepticism Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

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

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI

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

Of relevance to "Generally considered pseudoscience"

-

The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling. (See Note 29)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

1, 2, 3

In popular culture

I removed this section because it is unsourced original research and taking far too much of the article. If anyone objects please discuss it here and we can talk about if. Goblin Face (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Fairly typical for so-called 'popular culture' sections of articles. Full of unsourced examples (often trivial), and completely lacking any sourced material actually analysing telepathy in popular culture as a subject. At minimum, inclusion in such sections needs to meet the same standard as other material - by citing third-party sources that discuss particular instances of telepathy as elements of popular culture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telepathy and pseudoscience

This edit in my opinion does not reflect the cited sources [1], because none of those sources in the lead mention telepathy being pseudoscience, they say there is no evidence for telepathy and it is non-existent. We already cover parapsychology being a pseudoscience on the article in another section, so there is no need to cover it twice. I have no problem with telepathy being described as pseudoscience but we cannot attribute statements that are not in the cited sources.

The statement "There is no scientific evidence that telepathy is a real phenomenon. Many studies seeking to detect, understand, and utilize telepathy have been carried out, but no replicable results from well-controlled experiments exist." Is more accurate to what the sources say that are in the lead. TreeTrailer (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITELEAD

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

It doesn't need a cite in the lede unless you think it is controversial. Kindly change it back. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiment?

Although Jacobo Grinberg is mentioned in wikipedia: there is no mention of this experiment. The experiment is simple - cut and dried. Put 2 people in a room, then separate them into individual chambers where their respective brains are connected to an EEG. Bombard one patient with light pulses and find that the other also senses it according to his EEG readout. The outcome - so I have heard was about 25% positive for patients - way above statistical noise. The experiment has been replicated elsewhere (e.g. "Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects" by Standish et al.). The mechanisms suggested are quantum nonlocality and consciousness. This in itself does not prove TP exists - only that its potential is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.85.61.113 (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Sheldrake's work

Sheldrake has published some of the more convincing evidence for telepathy. Is there a reason for it to be left out of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay658 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as something is published by a reliable source it can be added to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]