Jump to content

Talk:Remote viewing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CIA admits that remote viewing isn't bull

[edit]

A statement was posted to the CIA website confirming that they believe it to be a real phenomenon. It's not obvious to me where this might go – could someone who's inclined include it? — TARDIS builder💬   |     07:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus view is that CIA got no actionable intelligence through remote viewing, so whether they believe it to be genuine or not is irrelevant. Verbatim quote: but that the phenomenon was too unreliable, inconsistent, and sporadic to be useful for intelligence purposes. So, yeah, taking the report at face value, they concluded that it works, but it works so badly as to be practically useless. As in general with psi phenomena: they provide some significant correlations, but they are useless in the real world. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, replacing "significant" with "real" is a rookie mistake because correlation is not causation. And it would be very weird if all the CIA had a single opinion about it. There are bound to be people working there who are very smart and knowledgeable and others who are not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the CIA thought it was bull, they wouldn’t have continued the program for so long as well as army intelligence. Not to mention the Chinese and Russian programs. 2605:59C8:99C:8910:2140:49BA:B5A9:137B (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion and not relevant to this article. Programs take a while to be funded and also to be dismantled, "for so long" is relative. It was also only pennies of their budget so they probably didn't really think much of it. The Chinese and Russians were doing what the USA was doing, and we don't completely know what they were doing. So your argument is not relevant. The rules of FRINGE apply here. Sgerbic (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at question is whether the phenomenon was observed, not whether it is practical or useful. 70.28.13.197 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"observed" what the first statement was in that the CIA said that it was a "real phenomenon"? How does "real" equate to "observed"? Sgerbic (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we can say that it “works but works badly” shouldn’t this be in the article? I understand the lack of repeatability but it seems willfully misleading to leave this out. Frankincents (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A tidbit extracted from a 1970s document isn't the definitive last word on the subject. More contemporary mainstream science has commented that any positive results are either chance or invalidated by methodological flaws: see Remote_viewing#Scientific_reception. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it not working, or not being real at all for that matter, means the info from the CIA website shouldn't be added. The page is about Remote Viewing, it seems relevant enough to add. 2600:6C67:1A00:3F02:7A26:DCD4:EF3A:A0E5 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are heaps of bad sources on subjects like this, and we have to select the best ones. You have not given a reason why this source is good, let alone one of the best. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I argued below, the CIA saw it as a promising technique, but such promises never came to fruition. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few people can do remote viewing well

[edit]

That is what this Wikipedia article gets wrong. It is a red herring to say that studies show that remote viewing can not be replicated in large studies. Of course not.

Even those who do it well aren't 100% right. Hal Puthoff discusses who got the best results in this recent 2025 interview:

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero people can. 2804:18:1080:2865:1:0:FD0F:623C (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hal Puthoff (Harold Puthoff in this Wikipedia article) was one of the main researchers. I suggest you get a username so we can see your biases (if any) in how you edit Wikipedia articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning the President Carter incident

[edit]

@LuckyLouie -Can you please explain why a book published by former President of The United States is not considered a legitimate source? There were several additions made by user @NRO Constellation that you deleted. This person listed two books an article, and the the published White House schedule for President Carter, and an official CIA document confirming the event.Mattford1 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having had political authority doesn't make Jimmy Carter an authority on parapsychology, especially not when actual specialists and researchers call remote viewing pseudoscience, and when experiments under controlled conditions have never, AFAICS, given positive results. Many, many rulers throughout history have employed, and believed in, astrologers. Would you say pronouncements about astrology by these rulers are also legitimate sources for the reliability of astrology? Bishonen | tålk 21:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Hello - thanks for your comment. Please see here: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000200020022-6.pdf. I will be providing additional sourcing shortly. Thanks! NRO Constellation (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking me for my comment while ignoring my question is not very good discussion etiquette. Again, would you say pronouncements about astrology by historical rulers with astrologers are also legitimate sources for the reliability of astrology? Also, you did right to discuss here, but it would have been better to have waited for consensus on this page before restoring your edit. Bishonen | tålk 21:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Apologies, but I believe the CIA document addresses your point re: "rulers." Hopefully the additional information and sourcing included in the updated revision helps add some nuance. Thank you for engaging. NRO Constellation (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This collection of quotations from politicians and CIA officers is massively WP:UNDUE. They're not reliable sources for this topic and should not be used to try to undercut the sources that actually are reliable. And pulling from primary source documents like daily schedules is even worse. MrOllie (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The daily schedule was included to show that Carter met with DCI Turner on the day that he described a "remote viewer" idenifying a missing aircraft in Africa.
This is confirmed by this CIA document from a few days prior to Carter CIA briefing: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000200020022-6.pdf
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but is the insinuation that this event did not occur and that Carter made it all up, despite the documentation? NRO Constellation (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'insinuation' is that anyone who took the CIA of that era's claims on this topic at face value, including a former president, is not a reliable source on the subject. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For clarity, are you suggesting that the CIA director (Stansfield Turner, whom Carter knew from their time at Annapolis) intentionally lied to Carter about how the aircraft was located and, additionally, that the CIA fabricated a Directorate of Operations "meeting minutes" document several days prior to aid in this deception? NRO Constellation (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting exactly what I stated, no more and no less. I'm not really interested in discussing the topic in general here per WP:NOTFORUM. MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but you have articulated no good reason to censor a former president's detailed, nuanced comments - backed by the documentary record - on this topic. Your objection appears rooted in a highly conspiratorial and ahistoric (e.g., Carter nominated Turner to reform CIA after its abuses were exposed in the early 1970s) theory of what occurred in the incidents described by Carter.
Censorship is not becoming - and certainly not the intent - of Wikipedia. The edits, along with the additional supporting information, will be restored. NRO Constellation (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with you is not 'censorship'. You have no particular right to push whatever you like into a Wikipedia article. Edit warring about this will only get you blocked and/or the article locked down. MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All credit to @Mattford1:
These sources are both notable and verifiable, and excluding them while allowing references from publications like Skeptical Inquirer creates an unbalanced portrayal of the subject. President Carter’s statements on remote viewing are a matter of public record and were made in interviews and speeches. As a former U.S. President and former head of U.S. intelligence (prior to his presidency), his remarks are historically and contextually significant, especially in an article dealing with government involvement in remote viewing. While his statements may not serve as scientific endorsement, they are noteworthy as political and historical testimony, and their inclusion would enhance the reader’s understanding of the broader social and governmental context. Furthermore, declassified CIA documents are primary sources that demonstrate how U.S. intelligence agencies investigated remote viewing over a span of two decades. Excluding them while retaining only secondary sources critical of the practice violates Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy by presenting only skeptical interpretations while omitting government-sponsored inquiries and admissions that the program existed and was evaluated. If Skeptical Inquirer, a magazine with a clearly defined skeptical editorial stance, is considered a reliable source for this article, then it is only reasonable and fair to also allow historically credible, non-fringe primary and secondary sources like official CIA documents and direct quotations from a U.S. President. This is especially true when those sources are being used not to promote remote viewing, but to illustrate the factual historical engagement of government agencies with the phenomenon. Wikipedia’s core content policies—Verifiability, No Original Research, and Neutral Point of View—support inclusion of verifiable and relevant information from credible sources, even if they do not align with the editorial stance of skeptical publications. NRO Constellation (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy and pasting comments like this is deeply unhelpful. Kindly do not fill up the talk page with redundant text. MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase - excluding detailed, nuanced comments from a former president (and government documents directly related to those comments), violates Wikipedia core content policy of a neutral point of view.
This is not in promotion of any particular point of view; it is provided in the pursuit of completeness and accuracy. Removing this information does a disservice to all readers looking for a fulsome overview of the topic.
Are you suggesting Carter's comments and the supporting documentation should be entirely absent? NRO Constellation (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following up here: There appears to be consensus among other editors (Randy Kryn and Timeshifter) that the Carter information, which is directly relevant to the topic and corroborated with contemporaneous documentation, should be included. Randy Kryn even suggested giving it its own section, which seems logical. Thanks. NRO Constellation (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Counting only the people who agree with you is not consensus. MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting Carter's comments and the supporting documentation should be entirely absent? NRO Constellation (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is already covered at Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit). We don't need it on this article as well, nor do we need WP:UNDUE expansion with reams of redundant quotes. MrOllie (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, kindly stop trying to put words in my mouth with this 'Are you suggesting' business. MrOllie (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that three editors have supported the inclusion of nuanced comments from a major American political figure on this topic, along with corroborating contemporaneous documentation, the edits will be restored in the name of neutrality and completeness. Thank you for understanding. NRO Constellation (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) That's not how consensus works and 2) Edit warring on multiple articles simultaneously is a terrible idea. MrOllie (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome escalation to administrators or another competent authority.
All edits are reliably sourced, directly relevant to the subject matter, and provided in accordance with Wikipedia's core principles of objectivity, neutrality, and for historical completeness. Thank you. NRO Constellation (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're already blocked from one article, but if you want more admin attention WP:ANI is always open. MrOllie (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NRO Constellation, I agree with MrOllie. First, As mentioned the subject is already covered in the Stargate Project article. That specific event seems to be relatively minor so it looks to me that the existing coverage is sufficient and more would be undue. Second, edit warring is a very bad idea, you should stop before you get blocked. As a reminder, thinking that you are right will in no way be a valid excuse. --McSly (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The broader claim is that remote viewing is "pseudoscience" and "fringe."
Yet there is compelling information from a major American political figure, corroborated by other documentation and sources, that it has had notable successes. Censoring such information is unbecoming of Wikipedia and is in directly violation of commitments to neutrality and objectivity.
How can this, along with recent unjustified deletions to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution page, be escalated to a competent authority? NRO Constellation (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you are saying essentially is that most if not all known laws of physics as currently understood are wrong. And that the proof for that fantastic claim is hearsay testimony. Am I correct in my understanding? --McSly (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that either (a) remote viewing has had some limited operational successes (as a former president and reliable documentation all state) or (b) DCI Turner, despite being nominated to reform the CIA, lied to a U.S. president about the efficacy of remote viewing (and the CIA fabricated a contemporaneous document to further this deception). NRO Constellation (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's evidence that the CIA saw it as a promising technique. However, those promises never came to fruition. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As MrOllie wrote above, WP:ANI is always open. That's where you can "escalate" your concerns to a "competent authority." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are both notable and verifiable, and excluding them while allowing references from publications like Skeptical Inquirer creates an unbalanced portrayal of the subject. President Carter’s statements on remote viewing are a matter of public record and were made in interviews and speeches. As a former U.S. President and former head of U.S. intelligence (prior to his presidency), his remarks are historically and contextually significant, especially in an article dealing with government involvement in remote viewing. While his statements may not serve as scientific endorsement, they are noteworthy as political and historical testimony, and their inclusion would enhance the reader’s understanding of the broader social and governmental context. Furthermore, declassified CIA documents are primary sources that demonstrate how U.S. intelligence agencies investigated remote viewing over a span of two decades. Excluding them while retaining only secondary sources critical of the practice violates Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy by presenting only skeptical interpretations while omitting government-sponsored inquiries and admissions that the program existed and was evaluated. If Skeptical Inquirer, a magazine with a clearly defined skeptical editorial stance, is considered a reliable source for this article, then it is only reasonable and fair to also allow historically credible, non-fringe primary and secondary sources like official CIA documents and direct quotations from a U.S. President. This is especially true when those sources are being used not to promote remote viewing, but to illustrate the factual historical engagement of government agencies with the phenomenon. Wikipedia’s core content policies—Verifiability, No Original Research, and Neutral Point of View—support inclusion of verifiableand relevant information from credible sources, even if they do not align with the editorial stance of skeptical publications.

Mattford1 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said. Thank you. NRO Constellation (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have misread Wikipedia's policies, which specifically reject the idea that we should balance articles in the manner you suggest. See WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is designed to reflect the mainstream view. MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether one thinks Carter and the CIA, etc. are lying or not is not important as to whether the Carter incident should be in the article or not. It is a matter of obvious well-documented notability concerning remote viewing and its history.

And whether or not most remote viewing large-sample trials show no statistical significance is a red herring. Those most familiar with it have said that some individuals are much better at it than others. Even those who do it well aren't 100% right according to the main researchers. Hal Puthoff (Harold Puthoff in this Wikipedia article) discusses who got the best results in this recent 2025 interview:

Making claims that Carter and the CIA are lying is based on WP:Original research. Maybe you can find an "expert" at Skeptical Inquirer to say so, and put that in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No editor has said Carter and the CIA are lying, only that the data plucked from WP:PRIMARY sourced documents and selective excerpts from memoirs don't warrant the kind of WP:WEIGHT that is being suggested here. The scientific consensus regarding remote viewing and other paranormal concepts is pretty clear, and the sources suggested by NRO Constellation can't be leveraged to imply that some credible breakthrough data exists and has been ignored. The Carter anecdotes are given appropriate treatment here, i.e. a passing mention framed as historical detail illustrating the brief era when such stuff was being funded by the government. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This well-sourced Jimmy Carter/CIA event surely deserves a paragraph (if not a section) on the page. Since it is confirmed, and supposedly accurate, it's both a historical occurrence and an example of what this page discusses. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Timeshifter .. its ridiculous on its face that the Carter source is being excluded. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for joining the discussion! NRO Constellation (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NRO Constellation, Randy Kryn, and Mattford1: And others. I think the next stage is a request for comment. See:

The President Carter info deserves more than a sentence that doesn't even point out that the remote viewing Carter was told about was successful (at least according to the people who informed Carter). --Timeshifter (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carter's report is a widely-known claim, and its omission from the article is kinda glaring. But we have to be careful and provide enough context so the reader can understand that Carter isn't making a FRINGE claim that Remote Viewing works, he's just saying that someone once told him at it had worked. He's not saying he believed that person. Above, Bishonen likens this case to rulers who consult astrologers, which is an apt analogy, but one that actually argues for including the Carter anecdote -- the Astrology article covers Reagan's notable dependence upon them. Feoffer (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not undue to discuss remote viewing, per WP:UNDUE text, in the remote viewing article.

[edit]

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the Flat Earth).

Carter's info is WP:NOTABLE and highly cited, the perfect canidate for the content of WP:FRINGE articles as described by actually reading WP:UNDUE.

Reverting. Jmancthree (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is an irrelevant policy here, since it is about whether or not to delete whole articles, not about putting content into an existing article. This has been discussed at this talk page and consensus so far has been to exclude it - see the discussion section immediately above this one. MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as clarified by the WP:UNDUE text, WP:FRINGE content is limited to WP:FRINGE articles which this one is. Jmancthree (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Carter's brush with Remote Viewing is unambiguously important information to be featured or it wouldn't have generated so much discussion in this very TALK page; and it's correctly limited to this WP:FRINGE article, as per WP:UNDUE text Jmancthree (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring all the content of the above discussion to edit war will not work. That something gets a long discussion in talk is not somehow evidence that we have to include it - consensus does not belong to whomever can filibuster the longest. MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made no argument for the exclusion of the text. I've have, twice. The text in question is the exact candidate that WP:UNDUE highlights as allowed in WP:FRINGE articles.
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the Flat Earth).
What is your argument against this? Otherwise, if you have none, then the text will simply be included. Jmancthree (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument can be found in the above talk section, which I have already pointed you to - twice. We don't have to repeat everything just because you opened a new section heading. then the text will simply be included Edit warring will only get your account blocked and/or the article locked down. As the person seeking to include content, the WP:ONUS is on you to gather consensus support before proceeding. MrOllie (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is already covered at Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit). We don't need it on this article as well, nor do we need WP:UNDUE expansion with reams of redundant quotes. MrOllie (talk) 0
The text in question is not featured in that article. And as has been explained to you - three times; WP:UNDUE explicitely greenlights this text.
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the Flat Earth).
Text will be reverted tomorrow if there is no further argument. Jmancthree (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article absolutely does cover the Carter briefing, and it does so in a properly written and cited way - without all the primary sources and the excessive quoting. In fact it is already covered by this article - what you're doing is trying to force in a second, redundant mention of the same events. UNDUE does not mandate that we include anything as you are suggesting here, let alone that we include it twice. I'll remind you that no one is required to respond on your timelines or in ways that personally WP:SATISFY. Edit warring is a good way to get yourself blocked - and promising to edit war as you have just done is usually considered an aggravating factor. MrOllie (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct about UNDUE doesn't mean you can include the kitchen sink but the reasoning you give,
"excessive quoting."
is merely personal taste.
Moving past whether UNDUE covers the text in question, as you moved on from that argument to the new argument that it's excessive. Given the evidence that this text has been argued for inclusion by many, it cannot be excluded on the basis of your personal distaste for the text. It falls within UNDUE, as you've tacitly admitted. And there is no more reason not to include it. Jmancthree (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more time - It's already included in the article. You're trying to include it again. We do not need to write about the same event twice. MrOllie (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie - it's a revert, how can excluded text already be included in the body text?
What you seem to be saying is "It's already in the text according to my personal preference of how much the event should be discussed."
That has never been, and never will be a reason to exclude text on Wikipedia. Jmancthree (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you actually read the whole article before you start trying to edit it or revert war. MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It's already included in the article."
It's seems that you are somehow unaware of the text we are discussing so I'll provide it for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Remote_viewing&diff=1313947270&oldid=1313945823
That information features nowhere in the article, and there is no valid reason for its exclusion.
It's clear to anyone who reads this thread that you're blocking on your own personal WP:SATISFACTION which is not a valid reason to block a text.
It's you who is in danger of moderation action if you attempt to revert tomorrow. It cannot be clearer. Jmancthree (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more time - We do not need to write about the same event twice. It is clear to anyone who reads this thread that you haven't actually looked at the article you're editing. You should absolutely report me for 'moderation action' right now, because I am not motivated by empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to write about the same event twice
One: It doesn't? (It explains the notable Carter situation.)
Two: It's explicitly greenlighted. (You aren't even arguing this point anymore)
You're blocking on personal WP:SATISFACTION. YOU think that it talks too much about carter, but clearly, given this TALK page, people want this text. And you've given no reason for its exclusion. Jmancthree (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is 'greenlighted' - just declaring victory will not work, either. That you do not like my reason does not mean that I did not give one. And, again - you should get that 'moderation action' going. There's no reason to discuss with someone who makes empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Carter's brush with Remote Viewing is unambiguously important information to be featured or it wouldn't have generated so much discussion in this very TALK page <--This is completely fallacious reasoning. Talk page discussions do not "unambiguously" make some information important. That's ridiculous. VdSV9•♫ 13:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. I forgot to quote the WP:UNDUE article for a fourth time, without any push back and even tacit admittance of the fact via you making an alternative argument when you realized the text squarely met the requirements.
Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the Flat Earth).

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_%22get_the_point%22

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise.

Jmancthree (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one has admitted anything - tacitly or otherwise, and 'push back' is obvious. It would be convienent if you could put words in other people's mouths like that and declare that actually they agree with your points, but the world doesn't work like that. Get the mods, already. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather just get you to agree to the edit but you're literally giving me nothing to argue against. You've said "We do not need to write about the same event twice" which is factually untrue about the text that will be included, and you seem intent on not expanding on your point of view. How it can be the case that the text that is not included, is actually already included??? What would be the purpose of this thread if the text was ACTUALLY already included???
It's fine if you're intent on not wanting to resolve this (I guess), even thought I really, really would rather you did rather than it being resolved by moderators tomorrow as there is no need for them, if you simply explain how the text in question is already somehow included in the article. Jmancthree (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is factually untrue about the text that will be included - seriously, read the article again. It is absolutely already covered. That you have not done this robs you of any crediblity you might be able to gather - well, if the empty threats about 'moderators' hadn't already done so. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely already covered.
To your personal SATISFACTION, as I've said this entire time, but not to those who want this text featured.
And since there is no other reason than your personal taste, it will be put back tomorrow, and if you revert, I'll contact the moderators to resolve. (As I said I would when I brought them up earlier and not, right this instant as YOU want of me and falsely ascribed to me). Jmancthree (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I probably won't have to revert you, because someone else will. But either way you could contact these 'moderators' now if you're so sure they will support you. But you won't do that, and I doubt you will tomorrow either - that is the nature of empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which edits these changes were meant to "revert" to. Similar WP:UNDUE changes were discussed here. Per WP:FRINGE, we can't cobble together anecdotes to create undue weight in the article that intentionally undermines the mainstream scientific position. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, this discussion was a little bit difficult to follow as it seemed to take exception of the exclusion of President Carter experience on 2 articles where as that info was already clearly included in both. Since, it looks like we are talking more about what level of details would be undue, I agree with MrOllie and LuckyLouie that the current text is more than enough to cover that topic. I see no reason to have 3 paragraphs with small details, that would be WP:UNDUE. --McSly (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:UNDUE, the remote viewing article is where remote viewing can be discussed, especially with such a notable event such as the Carter situation is.
You can't go one sentence in the article without the mainstream scientific position being re-iterated. Which is fine.
But the exclusion reason of this text to all three of you (McSly, MrOllie, LuckyLouie) is that the text is too long, which is a comment on its notability and a question of personal SATISFACTION. It's not a valid reason for its exclusion; Especially when we see that it's equally wanted by many people, highly notable, and within the UNDUE guidelines. The mainstream position is not put in question because one notable event is talked about. Jmancthree (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the exclusion reason of this text to all three of you (McSly, MrOllie, LuckyLouie) is that the text is too long.<---No, that's not the reason. Read what I wrote above: "Per WP:FRINGE, we can't cobble together anecdotes to create undue weight in the article that intentionally undermines the mainstream scientific position". The three sentences that are in the article now summarize the Carter anecdote without claiming RV worked or that Carter believed RV worked. That's the difference. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream position is not put in question because one notable event is discussed. The text's inclusion discusses a notable event, rather then mentioning in passing.
An event being discussed instead of mentioned is not an exclusion criteria.
The weight of the article does not change. The article still follows mainstream scientific position. The section right after the Carter section would immediately give the mainstream scientific position on remote viewing leaving the reader with no Question of what it is. Jmancthree (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to decide what is and is not an 'exclusion criteria' - we all get to decide that for ourselves. You also don't get to simply decide that the reasoning of others is 'invalid' and then edit war. You need consensus support to proceed. That means convincing people to support you. Telling others that their thoughts are invalid and then edit warring will not accomplish that. MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the material Jmancthree has been attempting to edit war in is an anecdote about a "psychic" or "a sensitive" or "a parapyschologist" during the Carter administration. I don't see anything that identifies it with remote viewing, the topic of our article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay how do we resolve this?
I claim there is no reason for the exclusion of this text besides the personal taste of you three.
And you say it can be excluded because you three don't want the text.
Who decides whether something goes into the article when the text of a notable event follows the guidelines and is being rejected on personal taste, that the notable event is being discussed too much? Jmancthree (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides whether something goes into the article when the text of a notable event follows the guidelines and is being rejected on personal taste, that the notable event is being discussed too much?
That's quite a Loaded question. But in general, there is no single person who decides anything on Wikipedia. We function on WP:CONSENSUS-based decision making. There are some dispute resolution processes, but they're really just formalized versions of what we're already doing - discussing on a talk page. There is no person or persons who are in charge of making content decisions. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't have consensus. You temporarily have more "shooters" to revert at this moment. But given the amount of people on the above thread who want the inclusion of this text, it's our side who holds the majority position, or another way to say it, the WP:CONSENSUS position to include the text. Jmancthree (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need consensus to change the article. You cannot reverse that burden onto folks who are in favor of the status quo. Consensus is also not a majority vote and thinking of things in terms of 'sides' is unhelpful, see WP:BATTLEGROUND. MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This needs not be resolved by who has more shooters. Merely read the article from start to finish with the text in question included and ask yourself if the scientific position is compromised.
It simply is not. There is no reason to revert. Jmancthree (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that I strongly disagree that your edit represents the 'majority position'. Also, you don't get to tell others if they have a reason to revert or not. Kindly respect the opinions of others. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but your position on this text, to say it kindly, is looking extremely personal, and not subject to change. Every argument you've tried to levy for the texts' exclusion is not Wikipedia policy. It's a matter of taste.
So in the end, you are intent on making it a war of shooters, of majorities and minorities. It's the only language you are willing to use, and discuss, because your reverts are not justified and you don't even attempt to ground them on policy.
The Carter situation is important, and it does NOT change the nature of the article to discuss it. If you feel it does, what would you see changed about it?
If it's mere existence, is too much, I need you to say that. Jmancthree (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reject your inaccurate characterization of my comments here. If you need a refresher on what I've actually said, please scroll up a bit and re-read. I decline to repeat myself any further. MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

[edit]
I agree the Carter story is important, but looking over the additional details you want added, I don't really think they'd help the reader much. We have two primary documents that support what Carter already said in RSes -- but they're just retelling the same exact story we cover by citing GQ. Why do we want to mention all three retellings? As a general rule, we have to be VERY careful using Primary sources. For example, you assume (as do I) that the Air Force document is about the Zaire plane crash -- but we don't actually have a RSes for that. It could be different incidents for all know. It's tempting to just be lazy and say "Oh, they're the same thing" but that's exactly why we have to be SO careful not to introduce SYNTH/OR by using primary sources without a RS using them that way first. Ideally, all this information might best fit an article about the actual crash itself, but despite really looking into the story, I still don't know who was supposed to be in the plane that crashed in Zaire. Feoffer (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there FRIND sources that explicitly tie the Carter anecdotes to the topic of remote viewing? The stories attribute an unidentified random "psychic", "clairvoyant", "sensitive", etc. and not part of any structured discipline or government funded program such as Stargate. It may be WP:OR to conclude the person was a remote viewer and connected to a remote viewing program, and if so, the anecdote may be better situated at Jimmy Carter. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was tasked as part of Grill Flame (Stargate)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project_(U.S._Army_unit)
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article131827589.html
So it is one of the most notable remote viewing cases. Jmancthree (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source says ...details of the search for the plane are blacked out in CIA documents, but Jimmy Carter, who was president at the time, might have been alluding to it in an interview he gave 12 years ago. “We had a plane go down in the Central African Republic — a twin-engine plane, small plane. And we couldn’t find it,” even with satellite photography, Carter said “So the director of the CIA came and told me that he had contacted a woman in California that claimed to have supernatural capabilities. The source guesses that Carter "might have been" alluding to Stargate, it doesn't confirm any connection to Stargate, and it frames it as a story told to Carter about some woman in California (I thought they were supposed to be in Fort Meade, MD) who claimed to have supernatural powers. So we still need a source that explicitly connects the anecdote to remote viewing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main source for the claim it was a remote viewing and part of Grill Flame would be, first: And in the fall of 1979, Grill Flame abruptly went from theory to practice when the six were put to work looking for a missing U.S. Navy plane.
And a source to double verify the information given by the news source, (from page 3 near the bottom.) In September 1979, ACSI tasked INSCOM to locate a missing NAVY aircraft. The only information provided was a picture of the type aircraft missing and the names of the crew. Where the aircraft was operating was not disclosed. On 4 September 1979, The first operational remote viewing session took place. In this initial session, the remote viewer placed the aircraft to within 15 miles of where it was actually located.
INSCOM was under GRILL FLAME, per the first line of the report.
The primary source is the news report, not the FBI report (that's just to double confirm). Jmancthree (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense to exclude if it was a clairvoyant (which is not the same as remote viewing.) But everything seems to indicate that it was Stargate, and the method was remote viewing. Jmancthree (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Break out CIA section

[edit]

That a psychic program would be funded for 20 years on a year-to-year basis is the most astonishing part of this article.

I want to take a pass at writing a section after Early background, which breaks out the CIA information into its own section focusing on how it came to be, how it worked, and the reason it was eventually ended (The CIA Report).

No sense in working on it if it won't be merged. Does anyone have a problem with that?

Early Background will be re-written to only focus up to RSI, and Decline and termination would be merged with this new section.

Jmancthree (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA material has already been broken out - into the Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit) article, which you linked above. We do not need two articles covering the same material. MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would've just been a semi-minor section touch up, but alright Jmancthree (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Bias in Article

[edit]

In the very Summary section is the claim that there is "No Scientific evidence." (citing a half dozen skeptical/critical sources. Simply put this is not the case, and makes the mistake of only citing sources that agree with the opinion of the article's author, e.g confirmation bias. I am not disputing the credentials or weight of the skeptics' claims, but it is unfair and unruly to exclude the the numerous credible sources that show that there is indeed evidence. Perhaps the authors of this article made the mistake of believing that contested evidence or inconclusive evidence is equivelant to a lack of evidence. However, there is no lack of evidence. Disputed as it may be by certain sections of the scientific community, numerous US Gov. and privately funded institutions have studied this subject, and in many cases have found a greater than random chance observable ability. After all, the department of Defense found it useful enough to continue their relevant programs for several decades. To say they did this with a sum Zero of evidence would be truly baseless. Further, if the qualification for "no evidence" are the disputations of the existing evidence by a handful of relevant experts, many of the commonly agreed upon scientific concepts we share would be lumped in a pile of "no evidenciary basis." What would be clearly better as the summary statement would seem, "The evidence for this phenomenon is much disputed, and discussions on the subject remain contentious, with opponents and advocates yet to draw a firm conclusion." Followed by citations from the works of proponents and skeptics alike. There is no great lack of credentials amlng the proponents to suggest their works are lacking in value or expertise.

WP:IMPARTIAL

Will 99.43.218.102 (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any actual, secondary, reliable sources that support your claims (please read the Wikipedia policy about reliable sources by clicking here), and which you believe are being actively excluded in an unfair and unruly (?) manner, please present them here. Really - present them here, on this Talk page, for other editors to review. I am unaware of such sources, and would like to read them. If those sources truly are reliable I have no doubt whatsoever that a consensus will be reached here to include their content in the article. But also understand that if your claims are not, or can not be, directly supported by any reliable, secondary sources, that content will not be included. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Ill provide two links relating to an evaluation of the studies performed for the CIA, co-authored by profs. Jessica Utts (statistician) and Ray Hyman (psychologist). Utts takes the opinion that statistically the phenomenon posed is real, while Hyman takes the position that while unconvinced, the statistical data alone is cause for further study. These evaluations qualify as a secondary source as they are not directly taking part in the original study, but rather were conducting a later review of both methodology and results. This source provides direct evidence, for the purpose of this argument, that the point of whether remote viewing is "real" is in fact a contended one, not only discussed by "Fringe" groups/individuals. The purpose of my providing this source is not to prove one way or the other that the phenomenon is real, but to demonstrate a variance in scientific opinion that the article does not currently demonstrate. That is to say, to amend the clear bias in the article.
https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/hyman.html
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5.pdf
-Will 99.43.218.102 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the statistical data at face value, yes, that would be the case.
However, there are good reasons for not taking the data at face value.
The obvious flaw in the data did not become apparent until skeptics reviewed the tapes. So: it's not the methodology which was flawed, but how that methodology was implemented in real life.
There is a difference between the methodology and what really happened. So, the data reflects what really happened, not the methodology. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Utts takes the opinion that statistically the phenomenon posed is real, while Hyman takes the position that while unconvinced, the statistical data alone is cause for further study. That is already represented in the article text. But we can't summarize an entire topic based on one quote from one evaluation of one study. That would be ignoring the greater context of Hyman's extended remarks and the many mainstream evaluations which have unambiguously characterized RV as pseudoscience. So yes, Wikipedia is biased toward the mainstream view, which is why we don't give equal validity to mainstream and fringe views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a no-doubt-about-it parapsychologist, anything published by, or involving, Utts in this topic area is going to be a hard sell per WP:FRIND. In your first post here you wrote about the numerous credible sources that support your desired content. Please share with us here those other, numerous sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Remote_viewing&oldid=1315457855"