Talk:Charles Honorton

Keep it simple, stupid

Let's avoid using this page as part of a great campaign to convince everyone that parapsychologicsts are stupid. Focusing on one event in 1971 as if it were somehow a defining moment is absurd. My version contains no judgement regarding his results, simply a list of dates and places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ersby (talk • contribs) 07:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are deleting reliable references and inserting unreliable pseudoscience journals, that's not the way Wikipedia works. Goblin Face (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources being used wrongly

It has come to my attention (from a post on parapsychology blog [1]) from a banned Wikipedia user who has complained about this Wikipedia article, that two of the sources used are being used wrongly i.e. claiming things in the Wikipedia article that are not actually in the sources. I have checked the edit history of the article, they were added by Panyd (talk · contribs) in this edit [2]. I am referring to the following sources:

Emily Williams Cook (November 19, 1992). "Obituary: Charles Honorton". The Independent and John Palmer (March 8, 1987). "Pink Noise and Dice". The Washington Post. They are being used for the claim that is in the article "Some statisticians argued that the meta-analysis carried out by Honorton that supported an underlying pattern behind parasychological studies was ill-conceived and ignored basic rules of mathematics".

Which is false because these references do not say this. I will remove these sources for that phrase. The reliable sources (Hyman, Lilienfeld etc) indicate that the Bem meta-analysis contained errors but none have stated he ignored the basic rules of mathematics. Goblin Face (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)