Talk:Telekinesis
(Redirected from Talk:Psychokinesis)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 86.19.7.12 in topic Terrible Page
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Telekinesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
 | On 5 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Psychokinesis to Telekinesis. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Terrible Page
editI came here for an encyclopedic entry on Telekinesis, not trying to be convinced it wasn’t real. I wanted like a history, an explanation of its use in pop culture etc. Instead I got an edge lord Facebook response to a post I never saw. There is place for the fact it’s not real, but there is no information here whatsoever 2603:7000:A703:C99C:41FF:BF7D:C56C:3F7D (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Read ALL the article, particularly the Belief section. Roxy the dog 14:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- You wanted a pop culture/in-universe treatment of the subject? Try [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, at the very least the debunking section should come after the description of what it is and its history. Flicking through some random other languages (French, Italian, German, Norwegian) one sees the pattern you would expect of 1. what the thing is, followed by 2. people's opinions of it. It's only the English one which is putting "reactions/rebuttals" before the full description of the subject itself and the claims it makes. It reads more like a lengthy polemic than an encyclopaedic article. Unfortunately this does seem to be quite common on English Wikipedia. 86.19.7.12 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)