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. --

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

talk) 11:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

To the OP, I came here from the maths reference desk. I take objection to your

Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Err most of those journals and sources are not reliable (pretty much all).

talk) 12:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"The only scientifically acceptable method" Such demands have absolutely no weight here, and violate NPOV, FRINGE, and SCIRS. --

talk) 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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)[reply]

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".

talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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

• Yorkshire Television, ITV
  , 5 June 1985

• 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)[reply]

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. --

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm proposing that

• Support. Sounds logical. --
  talk) 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• Strong Comment: The similarity of
  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)[reply
  ]

• The concept of dowsing for
  medical dowsing. I don't think we know enough to distinguish them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm not sure I get your point, they can have separate sections in this article.

talk) 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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

• 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.
  talk) 15:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk) 15:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Whoops, your right, I tagged it backwards!

talk) 10:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NPOV, along with the other core Wikipedia policies (most importantly,

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why do we care about this old research? --

talk) 15:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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 ([1]), Italian, Spanish ([2]), and Portuguese ([3]). Plazak (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seems fine, especially in light of

talk) 16:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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? --

talk) 01:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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. --

talk) 02:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I'd like to replace the text

It is thought that the dialect term "dowsing" was introduced at this period[15] – its origin is unknown but features characteristics of the West Country dialects.

with

With a forked rod (Y-rod) the sign of finding something is the rod dips down towards the ground as if to point to or strike the earth <ref>{{cite book|last1=Bird|first1=Christopher|title=The Divining Hand|date=1993|publisher=Schiffer Publishing Ltd, USA|location=Atglen, Pennsylvania|isbn=978-0-924608-16-2|page=21|quote=About a hundred feet up from the pond's edge, the forked stick in Kidd's hands snapped down violently. Kidd took a wooden peg from his pocket and drove it into the ground between his feet to mark what he called a "vein of water"...}}</ref>. The German name for a Y-rod was '''schlag-ruthe''' <ref>{{cite web|title=Wiktionary entry for schlag|url=https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schlag|accessdate=13 January 2018}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|title=Wiktionary entry for ruthe|url=https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ruthe|accessdate=13 January 2018}}</ref> ('''striking rod''') <ref name="Barrett_Psychical Research_p170">{{cite book|last1=Barrett|first1=William|title=Psychical Research|date=1911|publisher=Henry Holt & Co. (N.Y.), Williams and Norgate (London)|location=New York and London|page=170|url=https://archive.org/stream/psychicalresear00barr#page/n5/mode/2up|accessdate=2 January 2018|quote=Now, the colloquial German word for the rod was then ''schlag-ruthe'' or ''striking-rod''; this, translated into the Middle English became the ''duschan'' or striking rod, and finally "deusing or dowsing rod".}}</ref>, which was translated in the 16th century Cornish dialect to '''duschen''' <ref>{{cite book|last1=Stratmann|first1=Francis|title=A Middle-English Dictionary|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=https://ia800205.us.archive.org/28/items/middleenglishdic00stra/middleenglishdic00stra.pdf|accessdate=15 January 2018|quote=duschen,v., ? = M.L.G. duschen ; =dweschen ; strike, beat; dusched {pret.) Ar. & Mer. 5624 ; A. P. ii. 1538 ; dusched a doun . . . hure fon Fer. 3068 ; see daschen, dusching, sb., tumbling ; . . . dinning and dusching of sinfulle PR. C. 7350.}}</ref> ('''duschan''' according to <ref name="Barrett_Psychical Research_p170">{{cite book|last1=Barrett|first1=William|title=Psychical Research|date=1911|publisher=Henry Holt & Co. (N.Y.), Williams and Norgate (London)|location=New York and London|page=170|url=https://archive.org/stream/psychicalresear00barr#page/n5/mode/2up|accessdate=2 January 2018|quote=Now, the colloquial German word for the rod was then ''schlag-ruthe'' or ''striking-rod''; this, translated into the Middle English became the ''duschan'' or striking rod, and finally "deusing or dowsing rod".}}</ref>) (M.E., to '''strike''' or fall <ref>{{cite web|title=1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dowser and Dowsing|url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Dowser_and_Dowsing|accessdate=13 January 2018|quote='''DOWSER''' and '''DOWSING''' (from the Cornish “dowse,” M.E. ''duschen'', to strike or fall), one who uses, or the art of using, the dowsing-rod (called “deusing-rod” by John Locke in 1691), or “striking-rod” or divining-rod, for discovering subterranean minerals or water.}}</ref>). In 1691 the philosopher John Locke, who was born in the West Country, used the term '''deusing-rod''' <ref>{{cite book|last1=Locke|first1=John|title=Some considerations of the consequences of lowering the interest, and raising the value of money. In a letter sent to a Member of Parliament, in the year 1691|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_EM1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=deusing-rod&ots=TuvFgfyTwO&sig=_qRDoGlrn2pYXVdE8G2y9FquOpM&ved=0ahUKEwjW9O26sNLYAhXCJ8AKHb18CLkQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&q=deusing-rod&f=false|accessdate=15 January 2018|quote=That four per cent. is not of the nature of the deusing-rod, or virgula divina, able to discover mines of gold and silver, I believe will easily be granted me.}}</ref>. So, '''strike''' = '''dowse''', hence the phrases: to '''dowse'''/'''strike''' a light, to '''dowse'''/'''strike''' a sail.

although I'm not sure of the conventions for highlighted keywords etc. Anweald (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, I'm seeing what appear to be multiple problems. In order to help clarify, I think it would be best quote from the sources the exact material that verifies the information you are proposing.

A few other specifics:

The first sentence, "With a Y-rod the..." is a description. I'm not clear why you're introducing it there, why you want to use that source, or what that source actually verifies. Looks like

original research

to use.

It's all very wordy, and there appear to be more verification and original research problems in the rest as well.

Using the 1911 reference seem extremely odd. I find it hard to believe that there's no modern history that draws upon it. --

talk) 16:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

As for the 1911 reference, it is one of the more scholarly accounts, and I don't suppose it is out-of-date as used here, because it is used to describe an incident in 1568. My reservation would be that the incident quoted was not a clear-cut use of dowsing. Regards. Plazak (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I don't see anything about 1568 in this reference. I do in the Barrett one, but not as part of the same paragraph/page. Anweald (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I assumed that you were referring to Barrett (1911). The only other 1911 ref I see is one citation to the 1911 Britannica, again used to document long-ago historical events. But I still don't see a problem. Regards. Plazak (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I assumed Ronz was referring to the Encyclopedia one because it's the one with the definitive info. I'll be more careful. Anweald (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page establishes what a Y-rod is but none of the rest of the sentence. I should leave that for a further edit. The 1911 Encyclopedia reference is old but I couldn't find a newer one that mentioned the full info. Most of the books are popular rather than scholarly. I took out the last example of strike/dowse since it didn't have dowse on it. Thanks for looking at this. I don't (yet) have the knack of seeing the wiki-problems, so there may be more.

I didn't even the 1911 encyclopedia ref, but the comment applies to both. It may just be difficult to find what's been published since. --

talk) 16:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It may be simply that newer books aren't in Google yet. 5 (of 7) of my collection are too new (and say much as the page currently says - one says duschen but also many other possibilities). The current text says "origin unknown" but basically it's been lost in the ether for a while. Would be good to re-establish - the refs stack up, except for duschan but how signif is that? What do you think of the changed first sentence? I've made some other uses of the Quote field, which I hadn't spotted before. Anweald (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quotes.

You shouldn't change a proposal after it has been commented upon. Create a new one instead. See

WP:TALK

.

I thought that but when I tried it it didn't seem to work well, particularly with references. Thanks for the link.

So why do you want to put the description there? --

talk) 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

To support the reference to schlag. There is otherwise only one, fairly old, reference for the original name for a dowsing rod being a striking rod, so I looked for a quote that would also show the connection. The quote describes a dowser-finding-something event looking like a strike event. If the Barrett (1911) reference is strong enough I'd be happy to take out the first sentence entirely.

I looked for newer editions of wikisource'd Encyclopedia Britannicas and there's also that from 1922, but it doesn't have the entry for DOWSER. Anweald (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OIC you mean why at the start? Why not as the second or later? Because schlag comes out the the blue with no initial reason, but the first sentence could be moved if it makes better sense. Anweald (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a version without anything that might be seen as original research. I've added "Middle Low" to "German" because the references suggest that. And references for the synonym uses. Also switched off the wiki-processing for the first version. I hope this is all OK now. Anweald (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle Low German name for a forked stick (Y-rod) was schlag-ruthe ^{[1] [2]} (striking rod) ^[3]. This was translated in the 16th century Cornish dialect to duschen ^[4] (duschan according to ^[5]) (Middle English, to strike or fall ^[6]). In 1691 the philosopher John Locke, who was born in the West Country, used the term deusing-rod for the old latin name virgula divina ^[7]. So, dowse is synonymous with strike, hence the phrases: to dowse/strike a light ^[8], to dowse/strike a sail ^[9].

Can I assume it's OK to publish this when there's no complaints? I'd like to wait a week in case something turns up. So, it'll go live on Sunday 28th Jan. Anweald (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits in History by me have been reverted but there's no indication or talk as to why. My insert on 2nd Jan of the first account of water dowsing, amended by Blurryman and Ronz, has gone apparently by accident. My insert on 28th Jan of the re-discovery of the source of the word dowsing appears to have been reverted by Nillurcheier with the text "not helpful".

According to whom? Is this normal? What can be done? Anweald (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worked out from the history it was Nillurcheier in one edit, so have asked why on his talk page. I'm still learning wiki-culture :) Anweald (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nillurcheier talk said he didn't mean that much editing, he was trying to fix some error but it went much wider, so I reverted it. Anweald (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The motion of dowsing rods is now generally attributed to the ideomotor effect.

What complete bollocks. How can the action of welding rod style dowsing rods be attributed to "Ideomotor effect"--Petebutt (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are to discuss improvements to the article based on reliable sources. Please rewrite the above after considering the linked article and the references. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I experience is the ideomotor response is rotational in your wrist & forearm so the L-rod falls to a new place of equilibrium. I didn't find a clear explanation of this on the Ideomotor phenomenon page. On this page should be a clear explanation of how you get an answer which is then communicated by your ideomotor response, but we don't know what that is in general. Anweald (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to need reliable sources here to verify what you are talking about. You can provide links or references to books which explain the subject. It's a scientific subject you're talking about, so published, peer reviewed studies would be the gold standard here. Without these, the discussion can't continue much longer as this isn't a place to just chat about the subject without suggesting actionable improvements to the article text. Also the vulgarities aren't going to expedite rapid support for anyone's suggestions, so might want to rethink the tone. Edaham (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I've just finished reading the refs for that particular sentence. It seems uncontroversial, given the wealth of sources which validate it to state that "generally", dousing rod behavior has been attributed to the IM-effect. I've deleted an uncited section and condensed some templates in this article - check history for details. Edaham (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a ready RS, but there theory leaked into mass folk culture, type of conspiracy theory of "water veins" at least in CEE:

"So we can safely remove the so-called  radiators, throw out chestnuts, egg shells, springs, batteries, bottles with oil and mysterious plates from under our beds, everything that human and probably not only human* fantasy invented."

Shall we mention it here?

Ps * devil is implied here by the author Zezen (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well somewhat contradicting the jist of the article, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports on a company that successfully used gold dowsing to locate a gold ore deposit and then mined for it! A $650 million mine was established from it, at Gruyere in Western Australia. I've added that to the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick Google search, there seems to be no corroboration of this pretty fantastic claim beyond the single linked ABC article. I don't think one poorly supported anecdote deserves an entire section in the article, so I've removed it. Tibbbs (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted the section - there are *multiple* ABC articles on the mine, and Lubiecki. Also, you need general concensus before you make a major change like removeing a section , its not something one editor can do without discussion here - I'll also note you didn't notify me that it was being removed. Also, the *mine is in actual operation*, based on him finding minerals there, and he was acknowledged as finding the deposit, by the mining company and the professional association for mining in Australia. I would remind you also that as wiki editors we need to be WP:NPOV. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known geologist Ziggy Lubieniecki was awarded the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies' prestigious Prospector Award in 2015 for his role in the Gruyere discovery." Lubienicki is a geologist and a gold diviner (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-29/water-diviner-bob-biggs-says-he-can-divine-for-gold/13084288) Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the lede to the previous stable version because user Hob Gadling made changes to it without discussion and seeking consensus - also I don't understand his edit summary comment. Please discuss here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why it belongs in the lede, other than for SOAP purposes, is beyond me, but do explain. FRINGE applies. --Hipal (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What belongs in the article body should be presented with extreme care, as these are extraordinary claims. Use of Wikipedia's voice requires consensus to avoid FRINGE violations. --Hipal (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its been in the lede for a while, if you want to change the article and remove that, you need concensus. The fact is, as recorded by the ABC, the mine was established from an ore deposit, which was discovered using dowsing. There is a $650 million dollar mine there now. Please do not remove the reference without seeking concensus. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note, I'm not a supporter or believer in pseudoscience, and I can see quite clearly all the tests on dowsing indicate its bullshit. However, that's what the ABC article says, and there's a $650 million dollar mine there now employing 200 people, so at face value, it would appear to contradict tests on dowsing that found there was no validity in it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's no argument for inclusion in any form, and seems a clear RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, and FRINGE violation. Ignoring policy doesn't work, and sanctions apply. Make a case and stop edit-warring. --Hipal (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested help from Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Dowsing. --Hipal (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have further opinions. However, this isn't a ghost, or seance. There is a $650 million dollar mine there. The dowser, in this case, is mining executive, as well as a Geologist. The dowsing story was confirmed by a representative from the mining company. The dowser was given a high profile award for finding the mine from the professional body for mining in Australia. And it is all reported by the Australian Broadcasting corporation, which is a respected news source. As far as I can see, *this isn't fringe*. The Gruyere Gold Project is in operation, you can go and see it, it employs 200 people.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:ONUS. Have you looked at RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, or FRINGE yet? --Hipal (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, once again the section on the use of dowsing in Australia has been removed, this time, with no explanation. I am re-inserting it. This existed in the long standing version.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came here from the Fringe noticeboard. I also oppose the re-adding of the section per

WP:FRINGE. We also don't add claims of psychics when they randomly get the death of the celebrity right.--McSly (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I deleted it because it very obviously does not belong there. (The article had popped up on my watchlist often in the last few days, but the discussion did not, so when I noticed that typical pseudoscience-promoting "but-it-worked-in-this-one-case!" anecdote in the lede popping up in the changes, of course I deleted it. I did not think of checking the Talk page.) If we allowed this sort of thing, the lede of the Homeopathy article would be full of examples of the magic sugar healing the common cold of a journalist's friend after just two weeks.

If journalistic publications about single data points were noteworthy for judging the validity of something that has already been tested extensively with thousands of data points, they would be lede-worthy. As it is, they are not, and you will be laughed out of the lab if you suggest to a scientist that they are. Independent of that, do you think we need to quote every article that has ever been published on the subject of an article? Maybe you picked it because it contradicted everything else we quote, but that would be

WP:LUNATIC. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

As far as I am aware this isn't fringe, its the successful application of dowsing in a successful commercial project, so

WP:FRINGE/PS Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

LOL! this isn't fringe, its the successful application of dowsing in a successful commercial project, so

WP:FRINGE

applies to "the successful application of" a fringe technique. Mines are found all the time, by people wearing glasses and by people not wearing glasses, by redheads and by non-redheads, by dowsers and by non-dowsers. A paper may see a mine found by someone who happens to be a dowser as headline-worthy, but Wikipedia has higher standards.

It does not matter what you personally believe in, the rules about fringe pushing apply also to users who do not believe in all the fringe ideas out there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL "mines are found all the time". Have you even read the article? He didn't stumble along and bump his foot on a 2 ounce piece of gold in the dirt. *He succesfully mapped out a large outcrop of gold* - and no, people don't do that everyday. IMHO, if something is actually used as a commercial process, and achieves *proven* results, then *in that instance at least, under those conditions* its not fringe theory any longer. At least, it's an *Alternative theoretical formulations* until some other explanation appears (I guess?) Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare the phrases "all the time" and "everyday". Try to see the difference.

IMHO, if something is actually used as a commercial process Get this HO of yours published in a reliable source, wait until it gains universal traction, then get the Wikipedia rules changed accordingly, and then come back here. Until then, it stays fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's already published by RS....in case you don't know what the ABC is Australian Broadcasting Corporation "Australia's national broadcaster. It is principally funded by the direct grants from the Australian Government, and is administered by a board appointed by the government of the day.[3] The ABC plays a leading role in journalistic independence, and is fundamental in the history of broadcasting in Australia" Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "tq" template is for quoting others, not for emphasizing. And obviously, I don't mean journalistic sources, which are considered reliable for things like "that person found gold", but those sources which determine what is fringe and what is not fringe. That is, scientific sources. When their consensus becomes, "alright, you can earn money with it, now it's not fringe anymore", then dowsing will stop being considered fringe. Also, homeopathy, astrology, ayurveda, acupuncture, numerology, and pyramid schemes. Why do I have to explain this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think having an entire section dedicated to this one particular incident is undue. Maybe if there was an entire section on "purported successes" the maybe it could be a section, but that would arguably also be undue. Has there been any critical coverage of this claim? How specific was the dowsing result compared to the actual ore body? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree, if there were a number of sucessful uses then that would be a good section, but this is the only one I know of. He didn't just find it a piece of gold, according to the article, he mapped out the outcrop with dowsing, and then drilling confirmed the same outcrop. The drilling took months to confirm it was there. This is a HUGE operation - and also involved negotiating with the Indigenous people to get access to the land. No one in particular has done investigations of it. Also, the people from the company didn't believe in dowsing, until they confirmed the gold deposit and the outcrop. I will point out though, which isn't quite mentioned in the piece, the dowser is a geologist, has been a general manager of one mining company, and is currently an executive of another company, and is mentioned a lot in industry news so he's clearly not some nutty kook farmer.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I wouldn't have believed all the fuss about the nonsense I just removed. -Roxy . wooF 05:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a geologist he almost certainly would have been familiar with the local geology and the fact that it had a possiblilty of bearing gold-ore bodies and would have been familiar with the surface characteristics of ore bodies. Presumably a lot of gold prospecting is based on random sampling of areas with geology that is likely to habour gold-ore bodies. The fact that dowsing (that's no better than random chance) found an ore body is a lot less improbable than it sounds, given the number of attempts at gold prospecting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] And of course his knowledge of geology had nothing to do with his finding the mine, it must have been the forked stick instead. Oh man, you need to read and understand

argumentum ad verecundiam and cherry picking

.

So, you are pushing this because the incident convinced you that there may be something to dowsing. But it is not enough that it convinces you. It needs to convince reliable secondary sources, as in scientific journals. That has not happened yet, so, let's wait until it does, alright? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the fact he was a geologist, so I'm not hiding the fact. *he mapped out the outcrop of the ore body*. That's what the article says. NO Geologists can't just look at the shape of rocks, and the fact a tree is stunted, and then use that to accurately map out an ore body.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.. nor can they do it by dowsing. -Roxy . wooF 05:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.. but yet, its there... Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, caused either by magic stick or by expert knowledge. Difficult to decide? I think not. But it does not matter, it is still one data point among thousands, and not relevant for judging the phenomenon. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC article doesn't provide sufficient detail of the incident to make a judgement. It only statss that dowsing was involved in some way. The article states:

Mr Goode visited Gruyere six months after its discovery beneath the desert sands in October 2013 and he said he witnessed Mr Lubieniecki using divining rods to mark out the location of the ore body.

. So the only confirmation was that the diving rods were used SIX MONTHS after the ore body itself was discovered, and this is effectively an anecdotal account from somebody involved in the mine. another ABC article covering the opening of the mine doesn't even menion dowsing at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly says he used the divining rods to map out the ore body. Yes, Goode visited it 6 months after it was found, but the ore body was only confirmed by drilling. OK people keep deleting the section while its still being discussed, so I'm going to ask for more input.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who found the ore body? How was the ore body "found" if it wasn't determined by drilling? What does "confirmed" mean in this context? The entire account is a single sentence anecdote that is basically inscruitable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather, Mr Lubieniecki (Geologist and Drowser) both found the body and marked out the outcrop. Marking out the outcrop seems to be the more remarkable thing. He is referred to as the person who found it(in 2016?), so the mining operation could then be developed by th etwo companies, Gold Road and Gold Field. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternative theoretical formulations" really? This has nothing to do with science, but only statistical

My personal view is these things should be included, in some way, for the reader to see, even with the right framing to indicate its not proven (and could be hearsay), rather than have it deleted from the page and hidden. I don't have wikipedia policy to quote for that.I would use a better source, but there isn't one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reflect on why there isn't a better source. -Roxy . wooF 07:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

....and you missed the point I was making completely, but anyway....Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]