Wikipedia:Peer review/Extra-sensory perception/archive1
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:
- "cited in ESP's defense. ESP's critics" ESP is not an object, so it cannot have ownership. I think that should be rephrased.
- Most of the sections are devoted to showing how ESP is flawed and difficult to prove.
- There is no history of ESP.
- 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.
- 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)