Talk:Dowsing/Archive 2

I have serious NPOV concerns with the article. I'm not going to tag the article until I have time to look through all the references. There are numerous mentions of NPOV here on this talk page, so I'll look into the article history during those disputes. If anyone wants to comment in the meantime, I'd be interested in hearing what others think. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup I agree - Indeed I use this article as one example of the problem with Wikipedia as a source. The article does not make clear that dowsers claims are paranormal claims, that dowsers repeatedly fail double blind tests, that natural explanations for any hits are more parsimonious than supernatural ones.

Nick-in-South-Africa (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's misleading to refer to the ADE 651 as anything to do with dowsing. It was clearly a dangerous scam and did not involve dowsers. The reference to it being any sort of dowsing device is clearly meant to discredit dowsing. 194.75.238.4 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)lsur

It's a device which is claimed to find nearby substances but, in fact, can only succeed through chance and self-delusion: It is dowsing. bobrayner (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There's clearly some self-delusion on the part of various government procurement departments which doesn't say much for the so-called scientists they employ. As usual, sceptics are wise after the event. Your circular definition of dowsing is as sad as it is unhelpful. Lsur (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Lsur

Otheus AKA Randi has monopolized and thereby ruined this Wikipedia entry with his obvious control issues and skeptism ... there are your NPOV concerns. Those that know and could contribute diligently, are suppressed. Suppressed Truth and History are their ploy for control.

Just look at the Einstein Letters above . Randi oh excuse me "Otheus" , just wont admit the truth when its staring him in the face....

anything else you want to learn Otheus ?

_ >the unknown scientist - dowser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.228.54.222 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Magic Randi's own test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqoYrSd94kA#t=21m30s

Water dowsing trials: 50, probability of success: 0.1 (10%), successes: 11 (22%)

probability: 0.00613468 (0.6%!)

liar liar pants on fire. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

After redefining "success", yes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest, redefine the lies all you want.

32min 55 sec : "The chances are one in ten, that is ten percent, ten percent was the chance per purely by mathematical chance, not with any ability being exhibited, just the fact it be done by throwing a coin, or throwing a dart into a board. Be one in ten - or ten percent." - Randi

Of all the things Randi could be accused of not being clear enough it was 10% isn't one of them.

I punch the numbers into the calculator *tap* *tap* *tap* *tap* *tap*

Probability of success: 0.1

Successes: 11

Trials: 50

http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=69

Binomial probability P(x=11): 0.00613468

84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for not watching the video and checking the meaning of all this, but 1/0.00613468 = 1 success per 163 trials. Not exactly unbelievable. Gnathan87 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to watch the video. They walked over 10 tubes, they did this 50 times, 11 out of the 50 times the dowser chose the right tube. If they would have chosen the pipes randomly they would have scored 5 our of 50 or very close to it. 11 is way to much.

Wikipedia:Synth says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Normally I think the source should be removed if the conclusions don't fit their own number but I think Dowsing is special. While brief, original mathematical manipulations may be used to support or explain known results new results should not be derived.

But is it really a new result or is it stating the obvious?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You cherry picked your part of the video. The total statistics were 15 out of 111 which is 12%, i.e the chance result. As you have a larger sample size you expect the result to be closer to the chance result. i.e in a small size you can and will have statistical flukes. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To the OP, I came here from the maths reference desk. I take objection to your attempted outing of Otheus. Please do not do anything like this on Wikipedia. As to the chances the 15 out of 111 is the one to look at, choosing after the fact to look at a part of a test is simply wrong, it is like choosing the trial in which 9 out of ten cats preferred the cat food and then saying they really do prefer it. Also for future reference you need to consider all the possibilities of 11,12,13,14 etc not just 11 so the chance is about 1% if you had started out with the correct assumptions. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, there is almost 0.4% chance to score above 11. My mistake. One whole percent is close enough for what we need. Now for the question if this is obvious enough to mention in the article. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if the test had just been for water dowsing and the rest hadn't been done there would be a case for doing more testing. However picking one test after the event out a combined result is cherry picking. I guess what would be best is to do another test for water dowsing on its own plus you'd really need something like 200 trials to get a result that was really significant if they are right in one in 5 cases instead of one in ten. Personally I'd have thought that some of them probably could smell or hear the water and I'm surprised they didn't do better, the test must have been set up fairly well. Dmcq (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The only scientifically acceptable method to study dowsing is through biophysics. This assumes that some people can detect low levels of known types of radiation. The most widely cited investigators using this approach who have published in English include Maby and Franklin, Tromp, Rocard, Harvalik, and Chadwick and Jensen. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research Vol. 51, No. 792, October 1982, pp. 343-367.

Enjoy,

84.107.147.16 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Err most of those journals and sources are not reliable (pretty much all). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"The only scientifically acceptable method" Such demands have absolutely no weight here, and violate NPOV, FRINGE, and SCIRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no demand. I'm not demanding anything. If I had demands I would put them in the article.

About sources: Proponents of works may be covered if their work enjoyed sufficient media attention. Even the most magical claims may be covered if the claims themselves get enough coverage. We should only cite the secondary source on the topic but we may provide primary sources.

Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. I would most prefer to use primary sources only to validate secondary. Contradictions would lead to omission rather than choosing who is right.

What I'm doing here is collecting primary sources that are good enough to make it worth searching for secondary coverage.

So, relax, I know what I'm doing. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This publication was significant enough to be reviewed in Nature.

• Maby,J. C., and Franklin, T. B., "The Physics of the Divining Rod", London: George Bell, 1939

• Maby, J. C., Franklin, T. B., "Review of The Physics of the Divining Rod", Nature, 146, P150, 3 August 1940, (PDF)

There might be something interesting there :)

84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think something is interesting when nature has the statement in the lede "There seems to be no direct evidence for such waves, and the author's discussion of their polarization cannot be justified on our present physical knowledge". IRWolfie- (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The author of the review is entitled to his opinion. We only care if it is significant or not. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a secondary source which states the primary source is not worthy of consideration. I fail to see how that indicates significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The author of the review is entitled to his opinion. We only care if it is significant or not. I will ask some one for it. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Chadwick, D. G., Jensen, L. "The Detection of Magnetic Fields Caused by Groundwater and the Correlation of Such Fields with Water Dowsing", Logan, Utah: Utah Water Research Laboratory, College of Engineering, Utah State University, (PRWG 78-1), 1971

• Clarke, Arthur C., "An Element of the Divine", Yorkshire Television, ITV, 5 June 1985

Contains a segment on Chadwicks work:

• Segment with "Duane Chadwick and Larry Jensen" on "An Element of the Divine" 17m 05s

Chadwicks Television performance entirely convinces the viewer that 1) the phenomenon exists and that 2) there is nothing super natural going on.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So why is this here? Looks like a list of dead-end research, exactly as you'd expect when you study something that isn't. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

So IP all you have still is youtube videos and a non-existant paper. The obriscascade.org link is just a catalog of publications, it doesn't contain a word of the publication. And youtube, aside from the problems intrinsic to youtube as a source, is not a direct source of the paper. Like I told you on IRC all you have are YT vids, a vague patent that doesn't work, and a scientific paper that you haven't even read yourself. That is the sum total of the evidence for dowsing.--Adam in MO Talk 10:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Clarke, Arthur C., "World of Strange Powers", episode 8, "An Element of the Divine", Yorkshire Television, ITV, 5 June 1985

It is an understandable misconception but there is no youtube in this. I provided the illegally archived copy anticipating "how can I validate this?" questions. Even while you don't even have any right to watch the material, specially not for free I do confess I did invite you to illegally download it. *shrug* Thinking you are watching youtube only shows what naive criminal you are. </sarcasm> 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence, you have none. Couldn't you just wave some sticks around and find some. </sarcasm>--Adam in MO Talk 02:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm proposing that medical dowsing be merged into this article (dowsing). There is nothing there which shouldn't be merged here.... 04:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Sounds logical. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This would be a mixing of 'class' . Medical Dowsing is about diagnosis and this article is about locating. It is only the word 'Dowsing' that occurs in both. Its a bit like saying the laying on of hands and psychic surgery which are two completely different forms of mumbo jumbo are the same as they both involve the practitioner to use his hands. I'm sure Francis Bacon would not approve things being lump together simply on noun connections.--Aspro (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Aspro is right. See my opposition comment below. Winterbliss (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support, without predudice to moving back to a separate article if somebody builds up more & better sourced content in future. I don't think we need to make such a strict distinction between diagnosis and location - sources frequently discuss medical dowsing with other forms of dowsing, and practitioners frequently do both. The "dowsers" who think they can identify illness with a pendulum over a medical textbook are hardly different to the ones who find hidden resources with a pendulum over a map. bobrayner (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Comment: The similarity of mechanization might make the unscientific mind draw a ethereal connection but as a (and hopefully enlightened) encyclopedia, why should we should follow them blindly into their concepts of similarities? To an uniformed reader (which is what WP is aimed at -is it not) it can start looking a little like the pot calling the kettle black. After all, aren’t all these beliefs, examples of rich and fascination facets of human culture. Should we not therefore, continue to keep subjects in the proper and separate classifications and expand them; instead of reducing ourselves down to their level?--Aspro (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• The concept of dowsing for fresh water is very similar to dowsing to determine what is contaminating the water which is very similar to medical dowsing. I don't think we know enough to distinguish them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point, they can have separate sections in this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I agree Jim (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Of itself Medical Dowsing doesn't appear notable judging from the article and would otherwise probably be deleted. It appears it might be just as good to blank the other page as a redirect and add the section here as there isn't much worth keeping. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, are there any decent sources that actually discuss Medical Dowsing? The page seems to have been created on the 8th of february. It seems to be the same as Radiesthesia. I suggest that is merged as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Medical dowsing is a different thing from dowsing for water or minerals. We don't know whether these two phenomena are related in essence. All we know they use mechanically similar techniques. But medical dowsers use pendulum. Other dowses don't as far as I know. Winterbliss (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose a merge in this direction, on the grounds that, in my estimation, many more readers will be familiar with the term "dowsing", and will find it offputting to be thrown into an article with an unfamiliar title when they look up the term on Wikipedia. 86.176.211.121 (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, your right, I tagged it backwards! IRWolfie- (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I had to read and re-read this talk page and the archive to determine that there were actually people who believed in this stuff despite all of the evidence. I actually thought for a second that someone had managed to pull off a spoof article within Wikipedia. The discussions here read like they were in the Onion. Mathematicians on their knees pleading for sanity? Since when does NPOV grant the kookiest of humankind a license to banter endlessly? Good grief! LOL......Take care all. If you're staying here, you've definitely got more energy than I do. I will however point others to this article as a sort of meta study of arguing pitfalls. Oh man.....Tgm1024 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dowsing works. Why it works, is uncertain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} bobrayner (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not an article. I had a relative who was a water witch. Why it worked, I have no idea. But it worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.104.28 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot help feeling that the NPOV is not being observed in this article. I feel this due to the fact that Dowsing works: I know this because I can do it. I am able to divine objects I do not know arre buried in the ground at a reasonable depth and I can ACCURATELY divine the course of pipelines, empty or full, without knowledge of their true position or orientation. I can also divine the position of objects such as pottery (I discovered some Roman pottery in my parents back garden a few years ago), or metallic items like cans or tin foil I know this equates to original research, but when an article pooh-poohs something that can be proven, I feel I have to speak up. Is there anyone that can help me with material to reference a factual account of real dowsing?--Petebutt (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree, the "scientific evidence" is broken. My father just had a 20-meter well drilled (paying 2-3k EUR for it all) by a dowsing guy's company who takes all the risk (no money change hands if the water is not there). That guy would be long ago out of business if he was covered by the "scientific evidence". Instead, he said he was high over 90% successful. And he is far from alone. One thing I don't understand about these experiments is why they artificially put tubes under the earth, instead of just counting statistics for such businessmen in real terrain. The factors that contribute to the dowsers' success may not be present in the artificial setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.138.181 (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV, along with the other core Wikipedia policies (most importantly, Verifiability), does not mean a neutral tone should be used. Nor does it mean all perspectives should be reflected. It's based entirely on the presence of different perspectives in reliable secondary sources. Primary sources and original research are not part of the equation. Therefore even if 1000 users post here about their own abilities and anecdotes, none would affect the article in terms of NPOV because someone saying "I can/can't [insert anything]" is not a reliable source. All that said, you should feel free to add to or change the article based on information in reliable sources. The reason the article looks the way it does (and I'm not saying it's ideal), is because the majority of reliable sources that editors have found do not support dowsing's legitimacy/efficacy. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fact that no proper scientific evidence exists of something so easily testable, and potentially so readily observable, is almost certain proof that there is no truth to it. If the results claimed by dowsers could be reliably reproduced then there would without doubt be ample scientific evidence by now, and dowsing would be accepted by everyone as a genuine phenomenon. If you believe that you can reliably reproduce your results, I suggest that you subject yourself to rigorous scientific testing, if you can find anyone willing to undertake it. If you really do have the power to locate objects using a method hitherto unknown to science, then you will become a famous and important person. Unfortunately, the likelihood of this happening is negligibly small. 86.160.84.91 (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1567&context=water_rep

This is the full text of Chadwick's paper mentioned by the other user earlier on. Come on, guys, it doesn't hurt to do a google search!

Haven't finished reading the paper, yet, but he comes to a positive conclusion despite initial scepticism. Much material on the potential mechanism, and data from a large number of tests which apparently show statistical significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.126.91 (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do we care about this old research? --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I note that radiesthesia currently redirects to a section in the radionics article. Instead, it should redirect to the dowsing article, because radiesthesia is another word for dowsing. In fact, radiesthesia, or close variations of the word, what dowsing is called in French (), Italian, Spanish (), and Portuguese (). Plazak (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance.

In fact, with 58 subjects, in most types of experiment, none performing better than chance is highly unlikely. It's like saying 58 people throw a dice 60 times, and no one gets more than ten sixes. What is the chance of that happening? Actually it's about 1 in 37,542,904,881,520. 109.147.188.138 (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the term in this case means, similar to flipping a coin, which is 50% chance of getting it right. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but, sorry, I don't understand how this addresses the question. It's exactly the same argument with flipping a coin. If 58 people flip each a coin a certain number of times, and we say that heads corresponds to success and tails to failure, then it is virtually certain that at least one of the 58 will perform better than chance. The probability of this not happening is ridiculously small. Perhaps I am missing your point? 109.147.188.227 (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

... of course, if dowsers are consistently much worse than chance then that could be a possible explanation. In other words, if their "abilities" make them less likely to succeed than someone guessing randomly. 109.147.188.227 (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

" it remains popular among believers in Forteana or radiesthesia." - A bit of howler from someone of a binary believer/sceptic worldview, and actually a gross distortion of what Forteana means. Forteana is something that people take an interest in, it's not a belief system. Some Forteana is most definitely real (or at least due to perception), and one can take an interest in the more dubious stuff without necssarily believing in it.

Forteana really refers to unusual things, sometimes including the supposedly anomalous. This can include looking at unusual beliefs, or practices as well. -MacRùsgail (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read a few things that attempt to give a history of dowsing. Most of them seem to claim that Robert Boyle (Yes, the chemist) wrote something about Dowsing. The scholarship of these authors was not particularly good, and I haven't been able to find anything written by Robert Boyle that is clearly discussing Dowsing, but I'm no Robert Boyle scholar. Does anyone have evidence that Robert Boyle actually mentions dowsing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.129.20.66 (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This appears in the chapter "On Unsucceeding Experiments" of Boyles Works (volume 1, page 343 of Thomas Birch's six-volume 1743 edition), a google digitisation. Boyle's own experiment failed, but he witnessed a demonstration at a lead mine in Somerset, when the "motion" of the hazel seemed independent of the user's hand movements. He also commended the findings of his contemporary the "diligent" agriculturalist Gabriel Plat, who ascribed "very much" to this "detecting wand". Boyle concludes that, for some, seeing was believing but personally he remained unconvinced.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Now added--217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That poor diviner seen in the 18th century... he appears to have been standing there for a couple of centuries in exactly the same pose, wearing exactly the same (now anachronistic) clothes, as when he appeared in the De Re Metallica woodcut above. Clearly the 18th century image is not actually of someone observed by Thomas Pennant, although it may well have been used as an illustration in his book, but copied from the earlier illustration. Runox (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dowsing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theherald-nc.com/front/story/10836.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050410205142/http://www.gwup.org:80/psitest/ to http://www.gwup.org/psitest/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814114138/http://www.phact.org:80/e/z/kassel.htm to http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091104173209/http://www.justnet.org:80/Lists/JUSTNET%20Resources/Attachments/440/moleeval_apr02.pdf to http://www.justnet.org/Lists/JUSTNET%20Resources/Attachments/440/moleeval_apr02.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727110534/http://www.e-k9.net:80/gt200main.php to http://www.e-k9.net/gt200main.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050410205142/http://www.gwup.org:80/psitest/ to http://www.gwup.org/psitest/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814114138/http://www.phact.org:80/e/z/kassel.htm to http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

not a notable organisation - it is my belief this would fail GNG. Should be merged/redirected to dowsing. Whatever encyclopaedic content/info of interest can be moved on, however that is limited considering the bulk of the article is their objective. some info can also be gleamed from these currently unused sources: Telegraph and this pitiful piece in the Guardian which unfortunately is a short and misplaced attempt at humour with little useful information. Rayman60 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That would entail merging many dowsing societies. There's a page of them at the British Society of Dowsers. Anweald (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The new lead is a circular nondefinition:

"Dowsing is a form of of resource location, usually using some form of dowsing equipment, where the Dowser moves across an area to be searched, marking where indication of a buried item occurs."

Dowsing is whatever is usually done with a dowsing tool. Could we be any more circular and vague? This gives absolutely no clue to how dowsing is done, other than the dowser moves over the area, and he often uses tools. So anyone walking around with some sort of instrument, searching for clues to things underground is dowsing? How about if I search with a metal detector? This is a terrible definition. No wonder it is unsourced.

"Divination is a form of remote indication which is not carried out in the area where the items are being searched for."

This is not the definition as presented in the divination article, and is also unsourced. Most dowsers I have met would consider remote map dowsing to still be dowsing, so I have to wonder if the editor has not just made this one up. Also, I doubt the assertion that one cannot try to do divination at the site of the thing divined for.

"The distinction between the two is important due to the difficulty in acquiring useful scientific data from divination, as opposed to dowsing where there is a physical reaction which can be measured and noted at the site of the objects found."

The line above contains the editor's editorial opinion, also unsourced. Unless we see some greater clarity and some documentation for what appear to be eccentric definitions, I believe that a return to the previous lead paragraph is warranted. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the new version of the lead is a problem. After reverting two of Petebutt's contributions, I was hoping for some other editors to get involved so it did not become a one-editor-vs-another-editor situation. My preference would be to go back to the status quo ante of a few days ago in the lead and hash out the new contributor's suggested changes here on the talk page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't oppose a cleanup, as long as "Dowsing is considered a pseudoscience, and there is no scientific evidence that it is any more effective than random chance" is still in the intro section. This is important and it should NOT be pushed down into another section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No citations were given, or clarifications made, so I restored the old lead section, for reasons given above. Discussion welcome. Plazak (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Dowsing could be considered a craft: when you test it you're testing the dowser and the dowse-context as much as dowsing. But I wouldn't suggest opening that can of worms. Certainly a statement of what dowsing is generally considered to be should be at the top. Anweald (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a question of ambiguity: dowsing is synonymous with divining, but both are distinct from divination. I think of divination as a general term that includes things like consulting the Oracle and reading the auguries. Divining is too close to divination so dowsing is preferred. Anweald (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I came across an ad on an online contractor site today asking for people willing to edit this page for a 'more neutral tone'. The ad complained about the current wiki article being overtly 'negative' and offered monetary compensation to a contractor willing to edit the article. Note that wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy for paid editors states, "those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published." See also: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure - Elriana (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It says, "A number of devices resembling "high tech" dowsing rods have been marketed", etc. AFAICS the root link is one inventor claiming to the BBC "the theory of how dowsing works is similar to the theory of how [his bomb detector] works". A bit tenuous. He didn't give any theories for either, so we don't know if the matter is relevant here, plus he was done for fraud. "Resembling" appears to mean "got an aerial that swivels". I want to see "can show and amplify the ideomotor response". The claim merits a link to this page but not inclusion in this page, I'd say. Anweald (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine, especially in light of WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia has become the verifier of wrong ideas about how dowsing and dowsing devices work. These scam artists will grab any form of justification, the more independent and historic the better. People have died because they believed in these things. Anweald (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean, nor if you understood my meaning. Perhaps you could go into more detail on what types of changes to this or related articles you think would help the matter? --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It says in WP:Fringe that "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects." but the idea that these devices actually are anything to do with dowsing is fraudulent or ignorant of dowsing, and the content is doing exactly what the quote says. I have realised the dowsing community hasn't filled the void here, meaning there's nothing explicit to deny the connection. So I, or someone, is going to have to describe dowsing in more detail and describe how these devices are supposed to work so as to show there's no connection. There might be a connection with divination as the more general term, though still fraudulent.Anweald (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what that quote from FRINGE has to do with anything.

Again, best to directly discuss changes, clearly identifying references that would support the changes. --Ronz (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I don't intend to do anything otherwise. Anweald (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)