Free Mini Psychic Reading
Free Mini Psychic Reading
v • d • e 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.
arbitrary break - Shoemaker, Martin's, Elonka's discussion below
Elonka, this article has undergone everything in the past, on the same issues, including an ArbCom. —— Martin phi ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
qualifiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive_4#Apparently_or_not_apparently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive3#.22Purported.22
RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive_4#RfC:_Which_defining_sentence_is_better.3F
Other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Parapsychology_is_not_a_field_of_science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Ridiculous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Parapsychology_is_a_science
These may not be all, by a long way, and the focus on this page in particular. But as I said, you can't separate this from the same issues discussed for years on other articles, and taken to ArbCom. See the loci here . —— Martin phi ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Studies Prove that Psychic Abilities are not Common, but Do Not Prove that they Don't Exist
The article says psychic abilities have been proven not to exist. A more correct phrasing would be that they have not yet been proven to exist. If only one person in a million is psychic then studies might miss them. Failing to find such a person is not proof of nonexistance.
205.240.0.37 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Removal of "outside the field of parapsychology"
Malcolm, you are destroying the meaning of the sentence, in which the word "field" becomes meaningless without the inclusion of its referent. It is also what the source says, so you are changing the meaning away from the sources provided. You are also on your third (or is it fourth) revert. Please stop edit warring. Bob (QaBob) 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
OK.... I disagree that the findings of parapsychology should not be mentioned in the lead. If you think they should not be combined into a single sentence as they were, that is one thing. But the lead should not represent only one side of the argument from researchers, even if you don't believe that the field of parapsychology is scientific. Bob (QaBob) 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.)If we removed all "fringe sources", that would require removing most if not all of the "pro-psychic" material including any mention of parapsychology which, almost by definition, is "fringe" and therefore subject to the rules of WP:FRINGE. As it is, I am of the opinion that a lot of "fringe material" is in fact notable enough for inclusion in this article, perhaps even from a pop-culture perspective. If you admit this, I think you must admit that EQUALLY notable to this article are the "debunkers" who create sources/discourse at the same level of reliability (they aren't publishing in scientific journals showing us why Miss Cleo's hotline is not able to live up to the observable claims in her advertisements, but she isn't publishing in scientific journals either). Think MythBusters as an example of a perfectly reliable source that is at the same level as those who are claiming psychic phenomena exist. The psychic industry rakes in billions of dollars which makes their claims themselves notable enough for inclusion here. However, if Sylvia Browne is worth a mention here then so are her detractors since they are active at the same level of source reliability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Parapsychology is discussed in the article. But the sentence in the intro is unnecessary, and particularly that sentence , which gives the impression that parapsychology has a level of respectability that it certainly does not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Parapsychology is a field of scientific inquiry. That much is established, both outside Wikipedia and within. Ask James Randi. —— Martin phi ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, any one person's "view" of what the scientific community "is" is irrelevant. The sources indicate a disdain on the part of the community for claims of psychic phenomenon. That's it. However, the parity that is evinced in the wording that both you and Marinphi have inserted essentially places parapsychology as it currently exists as an endeavor which deserves careful consideration vis-a-vis this article. We see many people above weighing in that the details of parapsychological claims are almost so irrelevant to this situation as to make including even mention of parapsychology in the lead to be problematic. Instead of adhering to this consensus about the sources, Martinphi has inserted audacious attributions to the Parapsychological Association: something that seems to me to be if not in explicit violation of WP:FRINGE then, at the very least, completely disruptive to our editing process. And here you are telling me that I'm insisting that we treat parapsychology on par with other sciences? Lord no, I'm trying to get parapsychology properly described per Wikipedia policies as the parochial, quaint, and eye-rollingly outrageous opinions of pseudo-professionals who apparently think that confirmation bias doesn't apply to them when they're looking for evidence for the existence of ESP. Now, I'm not arguing that this is the wording we should use, but right now your camp has positioned something diametrically opposed to this description which means that you are promoting content which is diametrically opposed to the best sources we've got. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion of PA in lead section
Since no one is addressing my concerns about PA being in the lead, it should be moved out of the lead. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, you are right that the PA should be in the article if it's in the lead. I only put it in the lead because someone put a "who" tag (or something) on the sentence- it was originally just a source about the consensus of parapsychologists. There is a good place for mention down the page, and I'll try to deal with this later tonight. —— Martin phi ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What is scientific
(undent) Orange, Orange <sigh...> you just don't get it.
but that's ok, and I'm not all that interested in debating it with you in this particular place. arguing against someone's religious beliefs takes a certain kind of environment, and a level of patience and dedication that I'm not willing to invest here. but mark my words, that's what it is. Science is a doctrine to you, not a practice, and that is what lies at the root of all our difficulties. but we can pick that point up somewhere else. --
Ludwigs
2
23:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
-
Now I'll grant you that Parapsychology pretends to be science, but it isn't, since it's not falsifiable.
can you provide a source which shows that parapsychology is not falsifiable? it seems to me that (in fact) parapsychological claims have
Truthful, Accurate Online Psychic Readings, Free Online Psychic ...
Accurate Online Psychic Readings Whispy Live Psychic Readers Free Psychic Readings - Get a free 3 minute mini reading!
Free Online Psychic Chat, Horoscope Reading, Astrology, Tarot
Free Internet Psychic Readings; Free Mini Psychic Readings; Free Online Psychic Chat; Free Online Psychic Reading ... My first free psychic reading happened to me when I ...
Free Psychic Question Free Psychic Readings Psychic Blog
Absolutely Free Mini Psychic Readings each lasting about 5 minutes. This way you can see if our style of psychic reading suits you...I am offering free ...
Free Psychic Mini Reading 10th January 2010 | Dilani Diva
Namaste, This Free Mini reading is for my new U- Tube Clients. There were three of you who have written to me , you are new subscribers to my channel. Welcome ! I look forward to ...
Free Psychic Readings - Skype Community
I am offering a free mini-psychic reading to any caller interested in having one. Have a question about LOVE, MONEY, CAREER or anything else? Get a FREE 5-minute reading via Skype.
Skype Community > Free Psychic Readings
I am offering a free mini-psychic reading to any caller interested in having one. Have a question about LOVE, MONEY, CAREER or anything else? Get a FREE 5-minute reading via Skype.
Free Psychic Reading on AbsolutelyPsychic. ONLY the best!
4) The only text that appears is the Guest Psychic on our site and the winner of the Free Mini Reading. The reader will only see the text from the person selected.
Get Free instant online psychic reading on Yahoo! Video
Get free psychic reading instantly.No credit card required. Its time to bring in ... free psychic reading get for mini personal by email
My Psychic Lady - Free Mini Reading
Your Psychic Guide for your relationships, love and romance, career paths, prosperity, health and happiness. Comprehensive Detailed Personal Readings online or by phone.
Free Online Psychic Chat, Horoscope Reading, Astrology, Tarot: Free ...
A free mini clairvoyant reading is something that most people seek after in their lives. I know that when I got my first free mini clairvoyant psychic reading, I felt powerful.
