Talk:Charles Honorton

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Honorton 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

Biography: 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 the science and academia work group.

Paranormal

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]