Talk:Dean Radin

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dean Radin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 2 years

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Paranormal Low‑importance

	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.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Parapsychology (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 27 March 27, 2014, see discussion.
No consensus, default to keep, July 5, 2005, see discussion.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic.

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Not a biography

I wanted to gain an impression of Dean Radin's life and work to date but, as it now is, this bio appears to be little more than a chance to put forward criticism of Radin and his career.

Criticism has its place but this page does seem to be unable to state anything positive at all and is therefore rendered one-sided, inadequate and, regrettably, unworthy of publication by Wikipedia.

BarryNL1 (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is unbalanced in the negative direction. NPOV? ---Dagme (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has to use the reliable sources that exist. If they are uniformly critical, what do you suggest we should do? Sweep the criticism under the carpet? Use unreliable sources praising him? Invent fake sources praising him?

Your understanding of NPOV is faulty. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch link

[1]

"Removed quackwatch ref in the first paragraph. Biased. Quackwatch itself is questionable." That is really bad reasoning. Quackwatch is not questionable, so of course I reverted that without even looking.
"Removed again biased observation regarding IONS. Time to stop the skeptic guerrilla in wikipedia" That is simple ad hominem. Also bad reason. Reverted without looking again.
"Not consistent policy; Edgar Mitchell's article has no added explanations of the sort." Also a bad reason because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

But at least it made me look it up, and it turns out the link does not belong in the Dean Radin article because it does not mention Dean Radin. It does not even mention Mitchell.

So, removing it was right, but the edit summaries were shit. Learn how to write better edit summaries, IP. Even better: learn how to think like a serious Wikipedia editor instead of like a PROFRINGE POV warrior. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even had it mentioned the subject, any material by Barrett on Quackwatch is a self-published source, and thus banned from here per WP:BLPSPS. See \:RSNP for confirmation on this. I have once again deleted the material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Impartiality Of This Page is Extremely Questionable

It is like this page has been written by some angry "skeptics", to undermine scientific facts. Another hopeless attempt to bury the truth. Welcome to old world. Take a look at it. It won't last. People are creating organizations and helping the law enforcements by using psychic abilities even though so called skeptics (they are more like cynics) ignore. Wikipedia allows angry and radical editors occupy this website. The history will be a witness that Wikipedia has been vandalized by cynics who made an oath to bury the truth. I wish them good luck. They will be the ones who'll be forgetten. 159.146.121.8 (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so. Just look at the way these people have been blocking links to the valuable information source Psi Encyclopedia. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is supposed to write what you consider true, but to echo reliable sources. Usually, reliable sources do not believe in magic, so Wikipedia embraces that position too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia at it again

This article exemplifies how dogmatic Wikipedia is about dismissing all contributions from scientists who have provided experimental evidence for the paranormal. This man has done experimental research suggesting that there is such a thing as presentiment - i.e. having feelings about what's going to happen in the future. He has done experiments where participants have their arousal assessed, through measurements of electrodermal responses, before presentation of pictures selected at random by a computer. The data he obtained do suggest that their arousal is greater before presentation of arousing pictures then relaxing ones, even by as long as fifteen seconds. I did not see any record of these data in the article. YTKJ (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have those results been received positively outside the psi-believer subculture? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a separate "Controversy/Criticism" section

The section entitled "Parapsychology" barely describes or cites any of Radin's actual work or his many studies. The majority of the section consists of a long list of poorly summarized criticism of Radin and his work without reference to what the source is specifically criticizing. His work needs to be included in one section, and responses to his work need to be separated into a section entitled either "Controversies" or "Criticism." In its current state, this page is too similar to Radin's page on RationalWiki. JimiR2 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRITS would be bad. Bon courage (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is controversial per se, and "Criticism" sections are discouraged because they make the content seem biased. But this article is already too far gone in that regard and it essentially already has two "Criticism" sections. His work and ideas are not represented almost at all.

Nine of the 12 sentences in the "Parapsychology" section (which should be renamed "Career") are critical quotes from detractors. The "Books" section lists two works: the subsection about the first book includes criticism only - the book is not even summarized. The subsection about the second book is 20 sentences long, 16 of which discuss one critic's negative response to the book at length. The book itself is summarized in one sentence. JimiR2 (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would normally summarise fringe books, except as done so by good sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article shouldn't exist vis a vis Wikipedia:Fringe theories then just say that, rather than make bad faith arguments about stylistic rules as if this poorly-written article doesn't already even have punctuation errors. JimiR2 (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGMISTAKE. This article should exist, I think as there are sufficient sources to ensure its WP:FRINGESUBJECTS are dealt with appropriately. Are there good sources yet to be used? Anyway given your impertinent interaction, forgive me if I now ignore you. Bon courage (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but please just take a look at this article. Ideology aside, it needs heavy editing in all regards. It has very little information and is very difficult to read. That is all. JimiR2 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overfocus on critical comments on the scientific research

I don’t understand why there are so much negative comments on the scientific research and no information on the marvels of these discoveries TitiPede (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]