Talk:Displacement (parapsychology)

The page shouldn't have a WPP banner on it. --Chr.K. 05:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right; it's gone now. --Ebyabe 01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Paranormal" banner Gone again - if wanting to replace it again, please discuss first and provide a justification Rodgarton (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

POV issue

A user has sought to add a POV tag to this article without offering any discussion. We now have an edit summary from her/him that states "It clearly presents no other side but the parapsychological" as justification. Naturally, as the effect under discussion is a parapsychological one (viz., an anomaly of forced-choice identification), that is how the content of the article must be informed. In any case, statistical issues are referred to, in a non-technical manner, which involve a non-parapsychological hypothesis for the effect. If the tagger has information to add on other such material, we should be happy to see it. We should also consider the speciousness of this tagging by the user in the context of her recent run of such tags over several psi-related articles, and the comments by others on her edits that that she has culled from her Talk page --Rodgarton (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirection

One editor has lately sought to delete this article by arguing, in Edit Summary, that it is only parapsychology, and needs to be redirected to the article Parapsychology. The decisive response is elementary: an encyclopedic treatment of psychology does not exhaust encyclopedic reference to psychological phenomena; and the same applies for any domain of psychological enquiry, including the parapsychological. --Rodgarton (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest effort at culling this article, by redirection, offered, in Edit Summary, that "This article has severe problems. Redirect here [to Parapsychology] until sufficient editors interested in fixing them arrive, to justify a new article on this subject". The author of this cull appears to be uninformed of the long ago debate on the failed AfD deletion of this article, by which discussion of the notability of this subject was confirmed. If the culler has new information to deride the notability of this topic, we should be pleased to discuss it. But we are not well served by autonomous efforts to simply redirect to a more general page and to improvise criticisms and ersatz-deletion of this article without discussion, and without due attention to the history of the article. We patiently await discussion that might ensue from her/his cavalry-call to "sufficient editors." --Rodgarton (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This article SHOULD be incorporated into the parapsychology article. I am recompleting the redirect. Feel free to put notable content into the destination article with proper citations.Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the editor above offers us no point of debate apart from assertion of her/his opinion, while she addresses not one of the points of discussion raised prior to her action. We can not be obliged to follow such irrational approaches to representation of knowledge. --Rodgarton (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The reply to the above was "Consensus appears to support redirect (as per history)". And so we have had to suffer another deletion of the information contained in this article, without substantive justification, while we await discussion of the growing number of issues that the culling vandalizer of this article fails to address. --Rodgarton (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple editors have restored the redirect, only you have reverted thus consensus seems to favor redirecting to main article. As has been pointed out notable material from this article can (and should) be included in target article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that notable information from this article coming from reliable sources should be included in the parapsychology article the article is, as it stands, a coatrack for a specific point of view vis-a-vis the veracity of parapsychological "phenomena". It has sufficient notable material that it should not be AfD'd, as you are quick to point out, but it is not sufficiently notable to warrant an entire separate article. Your characterization of my edits as de-facto deletion are, as such, false.Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect. Rodgarton hasn't provided any policy based reasoning to support his (clear) POV. REdirection isn't deletion, that's a tired old argument. Verbal chat 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect. The consensus clearly supports redirect and it appears sufficient discussion has taken place on the subject. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Support redirect, either to Parapsychology or Remote viewing. Since the article seemed to be synthesizing selected data to form conclusions in favor of the "displacement effect" being both valid and highly significant, I'm not sure what if any useful material can be added a target article. - LuckyLouie (talk)

After re-reading the article the notability seems to be in reflecting a serious error in research design for parapsychological research into remote viewing and telepathy (namely confirmation bias). May have WP:SYNTH issues characterizing information that way but no more than characterizing this "phenomenon" as confirming "psiological phenomena"Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I see in the article sources, the parapsychologists being cited claim that (for example) when a subject fails to divine the correct card, but instead mentions a card next to it in the deck, they feel it's a "psionic displacement effect" rather than an error. I suppose that as long as the topic is framed as "what certain parapsychologists believe" then it's probably enough to warrant a paragraph in the target article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tend to concur. If there is anything in the skeptical press about confirmation bias and this "phenomenon" that would also be a good inclusion.Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If such studies have ever been published in a mainstream journal, it's almost inevitable that the next issue will have a short article taking them apart. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 22:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)