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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology articles
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 articles
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.
I 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)Reply[reply]
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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]