Wikipedia:Peer review/Extra-sensory perception/archive1

Extra-sensory_perception

This article (which Jimbo called attention to on the mailing list as particularly poor) seems imbalanced to me. I am not trained in the sciences at all, and sadly my only experience with ESP is in readnig the books of noted skeptics like Randi and Gardner -- this means I don't have neutral sources to bring to bear. I have done what I can (and it's probably insufficent) but I don't feel as though the article is really in good shape yet -- it needs more attribution and references, and I don't think I'll be able to supply them. Any attention will be very appreciated. Jwrosenzweig 22:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• As per the second paragraph, see: Targ, Russell and Puthoff Harold (introd. by Margaret Mead; fwd. by Richard Bach) Mind-Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Ability (Delacorte Press, 1977) ISBN 0440056888. El_C
• Needs a lot of work. Seems biased. I think that ESP is bunk myself, but that doesn't give us the right to make it biased. Issues I see:
  1. "cited in ESP's defense. ESP's critics" ESP is not an object, so it cannot have ownership. I think that should be rephrased.
  2. Most of the sections are devoted to showing how ESP is flawed and difficult to prove.
  3. There is no history of ESP.
  4. There is little commentary of those who believe in it. There is no information on the research they have gathered, regardless of whether it's flawed or not.
  5. The lead section seems to be pushing a POV. Most of it is taken up by telling the reader how dodgy it is. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)