Talk:-kinesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on January 13, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject
Portal:MCB
 MCB Portal
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] VFD

this entire article should be deleted User:138.27.1.2

I completely agree... this page is retarded and originates from the 12 year old mindset that we can invent terms (google some of the terms to see what results pop up). Where do you draw the line? Can I just create the term Keyboardkinesis? The ability to move keyboards? Glassokinesis. Penokinesis. It's retarded. Science and parapsychology ALREADY have words that encompass the meaning - and that word is PSYCHOKINESIS. That's it.
Any reason? --Carnildo 06:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because these aren't real words/terms. Dictionary.com is a good reference for what is a real word and what isn't. User:68.110.12.199

Dictionary.com is actually quite worthless for what constitutes a "real word". In a synthetic language such as English, any word that is capable of conveying meaning from one person to another is a "real word". --Carnildo 04:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the anonymous user (I have added the IP address signature to comments by that user or users above). New words are constantly being coined, true, but they do not belong on Wikipedia unless they show widespread use. Wikipedia is not a repository of neologisms. In any case, I have removed some of the terms which were getting close-to-no Google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors. —Lowellian (talk) June 30, 2005 20:55 (UTC)

You are correct, these words are not actual word, they are words made up by people who want to seperate the different practices of Psychokinetics. They are all the same as Psychokinetics, but just different names. -Andrew Scott

The parts of this page describing psychokinetics and telekinesis are written not only poorly, but claim this to be real. I'd fix them myself, but the majority of these parts describe the "science" behind these powers. To properly edit them would be to delete most of their content. Can somebody who knows what they're talking about revise these to match the rest of the article? -Ian Burnet

Thank you! This needs to go. It's infecting half the comics and science fiction articles as well. "Kineses" are running rampant. -AS

[edit] Electrokinesis videos

There are actually 2 electrokinesis video clips on the show ripley's believe it or not, I'd like to add info but i'd like to make sure someone has seen at least one of them so no one thinks i'm making it up.

[edit] Incorrectly derived?

It seems to me that "-kinesis" as a suffix meaning the ability to do something with one's mind is an artifact of someone's misunderstanding of Greek. Does anybody agree with this? Telekinesis means the ability to move things from a distance because kinesis means move and tele means over a distance. In that case, pyrokinesis would mean the ability to move fire, not to start fires from a distance, wouldn't it? I'm not saying the page should be taken down, but I think it deserves some mentioning. It seems pretty likely to me that somebody started coining terms like pyrokinesis and electrokinesis simply because they didn't understand the meanings of the parts of telekinesis. Comments? 24.214.14.35 00:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct... but then any terms that have real agreed upon definitions based upon incorrect derivations are still real, but most of the just that keeps gettng added here is just fictional neologisms that don;t belong. DreamGuy 00:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, it would at least make an interesting note to point out in the opening paragraph. Does anybody want to add it? 24.214.14.35 02:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bastardizing words?

A few years ago, I did my A-level in Classics and was taught by a woman who was near-fluent in Latin and well-versed in Greek. I've always loved the way Greek words can be screwed around to make what word you want, but my teacher always impressed on me the need to make sure that both suffix and prefix were Greek and not Latin, like how the word 'Television' is half-and-half. Now, this may just be me, but aren't some of the -kinesis powers being bastardized? 'Aquakinesis' and 'Terrakinesis' for a start. Or is this just what other people, like those authors/cartoonists whose characters utilize these abilities, have already used? Lady BlahDeBlah 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon References

I took the liberty of removing the cartoon references from this page? Why? Because this is a PSYCHIC PHENOMENA PAGE. Not a cartoon page! If you want to look at cartoon uses of these, there is already a page for it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_powers_in_superhero_fiction

  • What makes you think it's a psychic phenonmena page? It doesn't say so, and the title indicates that it's a page describing words that end with -kinesis. I won't revert your change, but I don't think it will last long. bikeable (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe should link to list of powers in superhero fiction in the article?

[edit] -kinesis is a suffix with biological uses

Apart from the small section at the top mentioning biology, the rest of this article appears to be mis-use of words as psychic terms

Kinesis is the directional response of an organism to a stimulus

Photokinesis is the directional response of an organism to light stimulus

This article however, has it defined as 'the purported ability to mentally manipulate photons, to create beams of intense light.'

The 'psychic' uses of this word are also completely un-referenced and so according to Wikipedia's deletion policy, should be deleted if sources can not be added.

Perhaps re-name this article to Kinesis (psychic) or something similar? The Spith 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What about just making a clear divide in the article between the fictional and the biological? That would allow for both and clear up any confusion. CovenantD 21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Photokinesis being the response of an organism to light stimuli is incorrect. The correct term is Phototaxis. Photo- meaning light and -taxis meaning the movement of a cell or organism in response to an external stimulus. Photokinesis does actually mean the movement of light.NeilEvans 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly photokinesis doesn't mean the movement of light itself! You are correct about phototaxis, but both terms are used; a pubmed search finds a small number of articles that appear to use them interchangably, see [1] [2] bikeable (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the articles and it appears you are partly right about the terms. One article actually states "Synechocystis sp. ATCC 27184 showed a weak photokinesis but no phototaxis." This suggests that Phototaxis and Photokinesis are different. Also in a scientific article terms should not be used interchangably, they should have picked one term and used that, otherwise it just confuese the reader. Anyway if there are refering to the bacterium with respect to photokinesis and phototaxis then they must be different. I have consulted several online dictionaries and they all define photokinesis as the movement in response to light. Although I accept these definitions, I believe they are incorrect. If you look at the etymological root of the word photo- means light and -kinesis means movement, so the two root words together literally mean light movement. NeilEvans 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course, that they should not be used interchangeably. I found this article [3] which says that phototaxis is movement to or from light, while photokinesis is the "modification of the speed of motility in response to changes in light intensity". I'm not sure if those definitions are generally accepted, though. I would also say that etymologies are a very poor source of information for what words are used to mean -- many words have meanings which bear little relation to their origins! thanks for the comments. bikeable (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 0 Google hits

What todo with entries that yield no entries when searching on Google? Examples include the recently added Acoustokinesis. -- Frap 07:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been trimming some of the more outrageous ones. CovenantD 21:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

I reorganized this article a little bit, putting the biological uses at top, fictional uses below, separated with section breaks. I had done this before long ago; note that the sentence Additionally, words ending in... was a relic of my former re-org, which has otherwise long been lost. I believe that The Spith is correct in suggesting we separate biological and fictional uses. I have seen this page as an embarrassment for a long time now, with random and unsourced meanings being added willy-nilly. Please do not add new meanings that aren't sourced, nor should this page be split up into a bunch of unsourced stubs. Thanks to CovenantD for cleaning up. bikeable (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaaah!

Loads of unverified talk of psychic powers... I think later on I'm going to remove "claims of using electrokinesis" and crap like that, and replace it with more about it's fictional uses... citing Marvel comics characters and Buffy/Angel/Charmed/Roswell etc. characters... because sadly, you cannot prove to be that anyone has the power to make things float or electrify. Zythe 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree... -- Frap 13:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Just gone over a bunch, took quite a bit of time... deleted some which were identical to others. Some people also seem to forget it's all fiction. Zythe 20:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the words green?

I'm just wondering why the Example: text is green. Is there a particular reason for this? If not, I'll fix it. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I made them green because it stood out from the black of what was outside the examples... it looked really cramped up. Zythe 19:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I see why you did so, but it's very unstandard, and goes against wikipedia's look and feel. I think we should change it back. bikeable (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I had no idea it was a rule but it makes sense. Maybe the lines should be italicised or maybe each power should be added to a category? Oops. Again, sorry! Zythe 22:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magneto

His powers aren't just to do with metals, he has control over gravity and the entire electromagnetic spectrum too... just saying, no one needed to remove him from "gravitakinesis".Zythe 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one that removed it, but I agree with the removal. He doesn't control gravity, he controls EM fields in such a way that he can defy gravity. CovenantD 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I just read it on his article is all. Ah well. Zythe 00:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In Marvel Comics fiction, the -kinesis suffix refers to manipulation of stuff by manipulating psions.... at the very least doing stuff just with your mind.

However... Magneto doesn't control electromagnetic stuff with his mind, he channels electromagnetic energy through his body.

[edit] Neologisms

A big chunk of this article concerns unattributed terms for superhuman powers. There's a discussion of the problems with that at Talk:List of comic book superpowers#Neologisms, if anyone wishes to join. -HKMarks 02:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fictional use

Somebody keeps redirecting fictional uses back to this page. So we might as well include both. Other pages have in fiction sections, so why can't this. -perfectblue 11:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Notice the diverse discussion on this page, and for further discussion see: Talk:List of comic book superpowers/Archive 4#Neologisms. Who is the "somebody", so that we can point them to the discussion too? - jc37 12:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I appear to be caught in the middle of an indirect feud between you and CovenantD. Could you please discuss the issue with them and decide whether ficitonal uses of the suffice Kinesis belong in their own section (as you seem to believe) or if they belong with factual uses (as CovenantD assered when they twice redirected fictional uses to the factual use page).
I am willing to discuss the issue, but when one of you deletes the fictional use and one deletes the factual use, what can I do that doens't start an edit war with one or the other of you. Please work it out between yourselves. - perfectblue 13:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think I'll point others to this discussion, and we can go from there. - jc37 13:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I just saw what you're talking about at Electrokinesis. He's not in an edit war with me, or even with those who watch this page. What he seems to be doing is actually supporting the neologism discussion. I suggest that the redirect be directed to List of comic book superpowers, for now. Though that whole article should probably be AFD'd rather than redirected. - jc37 13:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
When I said indirect I meant that you were doing it via myself. I change something because of one of you, and the other changes it back. The other user twice redirected eclctrkinesis to this page, meaning that was where they felt it belongs (if they thought that it didn't belong anywhere, why redirect?), so I put it in, and you reverted it. Putting me in the middle of you two. Which isn't somewhere that I want to be.
Electrokineses long ago ceased to be a neoanglasism. It's an established fictional ability and a part of pseudo science (people with natural electrical field that interfere with cell phones etc, rather than people who throw lightning bolts). Google wikipedia for either electrokinesis or electrokinetic, the word come up quite a lot in superhero entries as a super power. So it's notable enough to be included and either needs to have its own entry like pyrokinesis in fiction, or be included under -Kinesis or some other bulk entry.
Don't even mention the list of super powers. I'll settle for it being there if you two will promise not to keep reverting it (of to AFD it), but I'd really rather that the entire article be stripped down and all notable powers be spun off like (reality warping, for example, was. - perfectblue 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The majority of those entries stem from old versions of wikipedia pages and unreliable sources. For example, a lot are from crazy people who believe they can generate electricity. Sorry to offend those of you who believe that, but adopting fiction as reality is crazy. Furthermore, until they have reliable dictionary-defined entries (Oxford, Collins etc., not dictionary.com etc.) or are used within fiction to describe characters (e.g. Scott explains to a student that Storm possesses "atmokinesis") then they are not at all worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't actually talking about those kind of people. There are real people who's bodies give off stronger em fields than the rest off us (We all give off some EM from our muscles etc). We're not talking X-men here, just enough to make a digital watch battery discharge or a cell phone speaker hiss. That kind of thing. Natural electricity is a documented field of science outside of wiki-cranks.
Anyway, I digress. Forgetting all of the others (atmokinesis etc is just fan speak) Electrokinesis is a real world comic book term, and it is used often enough for it to be notable. You and the other user need to get together and agree whether it goes on its own page, or it get redirected to a page with it on. Either way, I believe that it needs defining somewhere. - perfectblue 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It was and is. I posted the link above. Right now, the only -kinesis words that are in discussion to be used are:
  • Psychokinesis/Telekinesis - By consensus, the former for pseudo-science uses, the latter for fictional uses.
  • Pyrokinesis (and possibly cryokinesis)
AFAIK, all the rest of the fictional -kinesis (and -genesis) compounds are to be removed as original researched neologisms (and that specifically includes electrokinesis). As for the List of comic book superpowers - through usage, it's been found to be better to keep it unified in one location. - jc37 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Pyro- and psycho-/tele- are documented, and defined but electro-/hydro-/cryo- etc. are definitely neologisms, albeit popular ones. The number of google results shows this accurately. You can make them real by writing a book (fiction?) and in a sense, "coining" it, then of course a Wikipedia article could say "the first use of the term was in the novel {whatever} by..." ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
When does a neo-anglasism cease to be a neo-anglasism? There are 2 dozen comic book heroes and villains pages on Wikipedia that use the phrase, and it is an established comic book term of many years just like Reality warper etc. If you seriously believe that it is a neo-angalsism, I suggest that you go to the startrek pages and explain to them why they can't have a page on warp drives.
To be clear, in case you're coming at this from an odd angle, I'm not proposing talking about it as a science concept, only as a fictional concept. -perfectblue 09:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are articles that still have the neologisms on their pages. There was a time that this page had them as well. It has since been determined by consensus that this is a bad idea, since it's a case of Original research. Please take a moment and read the text of that page. I think that once you do, you should hopefully understand why we shouldn't include words invented by wikipedians (neologisms) on the list, or indeed in any of the articles. - jc37 09:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, if maybe you could find an issue of say, Fantastic Four, where a main character used the term "electrokinesis", then on the list of comic book powers page, I'd be more than happy to put "also known as electrokinesis" and add a citation. But, I don't think such documentation of the word exists. ~ZytheTalk to me! 12:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't read Fantastic Four but the Dark Conspiracy role play game has been using the term electrokinesis/electrokinetic since at least 1996 (It's a level 2 ability). In my book, that passes both WP:V and WP:RS, and proves that the word isn't just a made up fan word anymore (if ever). The term is also used in genuine science (though not as in people throwing lightning bolts at each other). For example it is used several times in "Electrical Stimulation Research Techniques" by Michael Patterson and Raymond Kesner (1981) to describe a phenomena much closer to the words true entomology. The book's ISBN is 0125474407 and it was published by Academic Press. Is this sufficient?
perfectblue 13:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If those were the things that you were including on the page then I would not have reverted. All that you were including were fictional examples without anything to show that they are called electrokinetics. CovenantD 07:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suggest further work on Electrokinesis, and include those references there : ) - jc37 11:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychokinesis and related paranormal usage

I've been silent on this for quite a while, but I think it's time that this article reflect the reality that there ARE words out there that end in -kinesis that are not scientifically accepted fact. I'm not talking about the neologisms, but the ones that have been in documented usage for years. I don't care what form the listings take, as long as we're not engaging in an anti-parapsychology bias. The Psychokinesis article in particluar is well referenced and deserving of a mention here, and I'm sure that with a little attention the Pyrokinesis article could be as well. CovenantD 07:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Which was/is the point of the disambiguation links at the top of the page. And pyrokinesis is linked on both of those pages. - jc37 12:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
But it's not a disambiguation, it's a valid, well established use of the suffix. The name of this article isn't -kinesis in science, in which case that would be correct. I'm pointing out a bias towards only scientifically accepted uses in this article. CovenantD 12:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bias. It's a common practice on Wikipedia when a term could use a disambiguation page, to instead, link to one, and provide one or more disambiguation links at the top of the page to the "other uses". If you would like some examples, I can provide them. - jc37 13:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I'm not making my point clear. I'm fully aware of what a disambiguation is and I think it's being used inappropriately here. Let's try this a different way. Why are the biological entries not just disambiguation links at the top of the page? What makes them different and worthy of a brief description? CovenantD 13:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Essentially, you're asking why Biology gets to be the "first hit" when someone searches for "-kinesis", instead of fictional use, or pseudo-scientific use? The simplest answer is: "Most commonly known". - jc37 14:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with you there. I think that it's far more likely that somebody would be looking up a comic or a pseudo-scientific term than a science term. Most of the science terms are so obscure as to be all but unknown outside of the scientific/academic community. The odds of somebody actually coming across them in order to wonder what they are can't be all that high. Can they?
The pseudo-scientific terms/neologisms are far more common in daily English usage, and far more interesting to boot. Hence they should have at a strong billing.
perfectblue 12:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
"Daily english usage"? I might dispute that. But in any case, the way it's set up now, should be fine. However, based on the "Electrokinesis" discussion above, I'll clarify the dab link, and we'll see what others think. - jc37 11:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You might well dispute it, as is your right, but I stick by my guns that the wider populace is more likely to come across the comic book terms than they are the scientific terms. For example, Buffy, Charmed, the X-files and Critical Eye all use these terms and have a very wide viewing audience, where as the "Scientists Monthly" type publications that use the science terms reach a smaller audience, and often one that already knows what the terms mean.
perfectblue 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Buffy, Charmed etc. only use actual word "telekinesis" and rarely at that. It wasn't until the later seasons of Charmed with Billie and Magic School they called it by that name, until then they had always used "move with your mind". Electrokinesis etc. aren't used. Buffy/Charmed never even say "pyrokinesis", although I think X-files did in one episode. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me guess, your either a white male aged between 15-17, or a 1st year student studying liberal arts. Either way, these terms come up on Coast to Coast AM which has a huge audience, and they are common in all sorts of fantasy role play games as well as in those feux paranormal programs like Critical eye that Discovery show about 90 million times a week.
perfectblue 15:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, you cited those programs. Is sociology or media studies a liberal art ... because then if so, both... but it's possible to get that from looking at my profile ;) I'll trust you on Critical Eye and that Coast to Coast AM thing, but are they dealing with "real life paranormal activity" or coined uses in fiction? ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "...these terms come up on Coast to Coast AM..." - That doesn't make them "more commonly known". FOr one thing, not even close to all americans listen to any particular radio program. And how about world-wide? I think it's fair to say that something that is studied in classrooms around the world (beyond even english-speaking countries) very likely is MUCH more common than that. - jc37 13:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The point that I'm making is that a lot of different programs use these terms. One program by itself does not make them common or notable, but together they show that many of these words (excluding junk fanboy words like atmokiniesis etc, which are pure neologisms), are in common use in the media and are well known by the public. We also need to look at examples in other countries, for example, Coast to Coast is broadcast in Canada, and Critical Eye is broadcast in the UK, and both countries also have their own paranormal programs and time slot that use the -kenisis tag.

perfectblue 07:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No! The programmes that relate to the fictional examples don't use the term. Has Static Shock, the example in the article, ever used the term, for example, is there any other source for when this term was coined? Critical Eye and Coast to Coast both sound a bit ... yeah. See, the difference is with "pyrokinesis", books and TV and comics have actually used the word. ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The program doesn't have to name it, it just has to be an example of it alongside a source that does name it. For example, Zula's powers in Avatar, Hotstreaks powers powers in Static shock, Pyro's powers in X-men, and Johnny's powers in Fantastic Four all have different names (half of them are never actually named) and take slightly different forms, but they are all come under the heading of Pyrokenisis.
perfectblue 17:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
According to Wiki guidelines and policy, works of fiction hold exactly the same weight when discussing a concept in fiction as works of non-fiction hold when discussing a concept as fact. The only real restrictions are that you can't present fictional works/concepts as being factual and vice versa, and that you can't use works of fiction to WP:V/WP:RS something as being factual.
I can present works works of fiction that allow me to WP:V/WP:RS electrokenisis/electrokenetic as being genuine in fiction. For example, the "America Offline: Psi Order Orgotek and Federated States of America" role play source book from White wolf which was released last year. It explicitly describes Orgotek using these terms and describes their capabilities in detail, then theirs the latest book in the Dirk & Steele series by Marjorie Liu which does the same. These two sources alone are enough to prove it in fiction and, as I said above, they provide enough of a description to label anybody and everybody who can use powers like this as being electrokenetic even if their own particular universe doesn't use that word.
perfectblue 17:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Its name has to be cited or it is not real - the term isn't even used. How about we call it magical-psychoelectrogenesis, as you said it doesn't have to be a real word, right :P? Seriously. Don't wikilawyer. Perhaps the article should be AFD'd and let other members get their own say on whether it is article-worthy. ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to read what you're writing. We're talking about a category of power, not a specific instance of that power. It has been defined and described in GURPS, therefore it is a genuine fictional ability. Anything that fits within that description can be categorized as belonging to it regardless of whether it is named as such in its own media.

perfectblue 08:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Anything that fits within that description can be categorized as belonging to it regardless of whether it is named as such in its own media."
No, not really. Science fiction is full of terms used only within the context of that fictional universe, even if they describe something identical to that found in another work of fiction. They are not interchangable. CovenantD 11:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking purely hypothetically (and excluding its naming in a comic), would you consider to be the tipping point that moves "Neologism X" from a neologism to an accepted fictional term? For example, would you consider Stan Lee using it at a convention to be enough? its appearance in a top 100 novel? or 1 million Google hits, etc?

"They are not interchangable"

No, they are not, but when one is a super-category for a range of related abilities, it can legitimately encompass the other. Not that I expect you would see it this way, of course.

perfectblue 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electrokinesis

I'm bringing this up here for discussion unification reasons.

The reason that Electrokinesis was split was not length reasons. It's because the science and fictional versions were not about the same thing, they merely used the same word (a homonym). This is even expressed on the page: "As a fictional concept Electrokinesis described bears little or no relation to its factual namesake." And since the page was not a disambiguation page, the two need to be separated onto their own pages, even if that means one or both become stubs.

Also, since the majority of the page history was about the fictional use, I had moved the original page to Electrokinesis in fiction, the name following the precedent of Pyrokinesis, and Pyrokinesis in fiction.

I'm going to re-split/merge the information for the reasons stated above. - jc37 15:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Better you than me. I don't mind whether they are separate or together, as long as they are included somewhere. Whatever anybody thinks about the fictional use, there is a clear and legitimate factual use, which is as valid for inclusion as any factual use of -kenisis.

I'm not entirely certain that the two uses count as homonym (Yes, I know, its semantics and has nothing to do with the argument going on here). Loosely, homonym are two words that sound the same but have different entomology and meaning, where as these two words have different interpretations of the same entomology and are different approaches to the same meaning. One is the movement of electricity, the other is movement in response to electricity.

perfectblue 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They have "the same entomology"? Really? How weird. Maybe a lightning bug... Wryspy 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Be glad that spelled that word correctly. You know what I was intending to say, and that's what matters in the end.
perfectblue 21:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Consider try and try. One may "try a case" at a trial, or one may "try, try, again". There are similarities, yet wholly different in usage. Consider also that your final examples could be used to say that electrical current is the same as a television, electric car, or anything else "motivated" by electricity : ) - (In other words, there is a difference between a "motive force", and that which the force is being impressed upon.) - jc37 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"anything else "motivated" by electricity", except that I'm talking about a concept in real/fictional physics, not in manufacturing.
perfectblue 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Jc, your reasons for splitting the article seem to be another aspect of the bias against non-scientific definitions that this article so clearly exemplifies. "If it ain't pure science, it don't belong" seems to be the modus operandi in each case. I point this out in hopes that you will see what appears to be a form of scientific elitism. CovenantD 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a funny form of elitism at that. Electrokinetics is actually part of physics. It is to do with the migration of ionized particles in relation to an electrical field. Whatever you say about the fiction, the science of Electrokinetics should either be on this page or another page, rather than nowhere.
And I'm not certain how my statement is construed as that, either. My only thought is perhaps both of you are speaking in general terms, and not about my specific comments? - jc37 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
CovenantD, I'm not certain how you read my response and came up with that... What I believe I said above is that we're talking about apples and oranges, both may be fruit, and as such, may be similar, but each should be classified differently. - jc37 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
It's not just your response above; it's your entire approach to handling these words, of relegating them See also links and using phrases like psuedo-science. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer in the paranormal and I generally respect your line of thinking even when I don't agree with it, but in this case I think you're being prejudicial against the non-scientific and don't realize it. CovenantD 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a moment and read over: Pseudoscience, and Paranormal, then look over List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Also read some of the other articles which are listed. This isn't about my own personal belief (which I have not stated). I am merely using the terms as applied by other editors, and presumably various reputable sources. - jc37 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Also check out this recent arbitration case, which would seem to deal directly with your concerns. - jc37 09:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../-/k/i/Talk%7E-kinesis.html"