|
Unverifiable, non-textbook material. Kellen T 08:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- http://www.amazon.com/Psychic-Warrior-Americas-Foremost-Top-Secret/dp/0312964137/sr=8-6/qid=1165921193/ref=pd_bbs_6/103-3899823-4446247?ie=UTF8&s=books
- "Psychic Warrior: The True Story of America's Foremost Psychic Spy and the Cover-Up of the CIA's Top-Secret Stargate Program (Psychic Warrior) (Mass Market Paperback) "
- --Remi0o 11:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes people claim that this exists, but that does not make it verifiable, textbook material. Kellen T 11:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- While remote viewing is not "verifiable" in the sense that so far as we know you could not prove that the phenomenon exists to someone who has not experienced it, many books exists on subjects saying that: here is what people claim is real, here is how they claim to do it, and if you want to learn how to do it too, here is what the people who claim to have experienced this phenomenon have said is how they have reached the point that they are at. In the same way, I presume there are book on theology here, and I know that you can study theology over at Wikiversity. So what is theology besides a discourse and study of the history and theory of a non-verifiable phenomenon that people have claimed to have experienced?
-
-
- It seems that a book could fit in here that says: here is what remote view supposedly is, here is the historical background of the topic, and here is how people claim to do it. Let me also say, that I have not thoroughly looked through the remote viewing book, and I am not intimately aquainted with Wikibooks' policies regarding the subject. I do know that there are college classes on such things as "paranormal psychology" which explores subjects such as remote view, telepathy, relgious experience etc. This one class that I know of personally was pretty much a debunking class though... --Remi0o 06:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. No idea what it's about and the author really needs to make this part clear. But I don't think it should be deleted at this stage. Xania 22:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Huh?! This is supposedly a textbook on how to be a psychic. Kellen T 11:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I personally am a strong skeptic of material like this, but that doesnt change the fact that there are "professional" psychics, and schools for learning that kind of nonsense. I may not agree with it, but "respected institutions" (using a broad definition of "respected") could use a book like this. I would certainly like to include a note saying that much of this material is difficult and un-scientific. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- As with Magick, this could also be seen to violate NPOV based upon the premise that the very premise of the book is NPOV -- that one can achive "remote viewing" at all. Kellen T 16:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- PS. I seem to remember that this book has been nominated for VfD before. I dont have time to go digging through the archives tonight, does anybody know what became of that discussion? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The only thing I could find was this VfD on Remote_Viewing/Pr02 (deleted and page protected against recreation). --Swift 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --- I am skeptical of this kind of stuff like Whiteknight. Nonetheless, it is popular enough that I expect that there are books and whatnot on this kind of stuff that makes it "verifiable". Most arguments I have against this book (in my mind) would go against Lucid Dreaming. I can't really think of a good reason to delete this other than "I don't beleive in it". And deleting something on those grounds alone is dangerous IMO. --Dragontamer 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- The reason I nominated this book for deletion (and this may well be applicable for lucid dreaming) is that it is inherently unverifiable and therefore not appropriate. Kellen T 10:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Though the effects are unverifiable, I think the topic can be dealt with properly because the practice of remote viewing (which is the topic of the wikibook) is verifiable. The main problem, I believe, is that of NPOV — not an inherent one but because of how it is currently implemented.
- The book makes no reservation for a critical approach on the subject and badly needs review and rewrite. If that doesn't happen, it does not conform to policy and should be deleted. --Swift 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless rewrite. I agree with Swift. It should be handled as a "history of" the practice of remote viewing, not a "how to" that is unverifiable. This is independent research. PurplePieman 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Remote viewing may not be a scientific study, but that doesnt mean that it's a new topic, that people haven't studied it in some fashion. Since there is likely material written about this subject (as dubious as that material may be), it satisfies our inclusion criteria. Remember the old adage, verifiability does not imply truth. So long as this book references it's sources (regardless of the quality of those sources), i am inclined to say it should stay. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the topic of 'remote viewing' is acceptable for wikibooks, but this book does not reference any sources and approaches the subject from the standpoint that remote viewing is achievable at all and that this book can teach it to you. In its current form it is blatantly POV, unverifiable, and therefore unacceptable. Kellen T 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- This raises an interesting point, then. If topics such as 'remote viewing' are acceptable for WikiBooks, then what sources should be used? Ones that are considered "respectable" by the Remote Viewing community? How would such a distinction be drawn? Who are the "authorities" on Remote Viewing? What respected, legitimate universities are currently offering classes on Remote Viewing? PurplePieman 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've no clue; my point was just that I wasn't dismissing the topic as unacceptable for discussion, but that it's unacceptable to discuss it in a how-to manner. Kellen T 08:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, sorry Kellen. I guess I should've directed my reply to Whiteknight. PurplePieman 04:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Remember, it is the job of wikibooks to write textbooks, not to read and verify external works. The fact that this module doesnt reference any sources shouldn't make it a candidate for deletion. There are plenty of wikibooks here that don't reference any sources, or dont reference their sources properly. There are also a number of books here that discuss things that aren't "possible" (many engineering books, for instance, discuss "ideal systems" that can't possibly exist) and there are even some books around here that contain information that isn't strictly verifiable (physics books that discuss the more esoteric points of relativity, quantum mechanics, or string theory, for instance). As a last point, I think that this module has come up for VfD before, and it should not be deleted without first reading that first discussion (if it does in fact exist), and examining the rationale behind the last decision to keep it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I've been watching this one throughout. While some strong views have been expressed in the end I do not see this as a "textbook" in a Wikibooks sense as it stands. Further - unless there are some valid & rational arguments offered I plan to close this as delete in the next couple of days --Herby talk thyme 16:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unverifiable and too confusing for Xania. Xania
 talk 11:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
|
