Talk:Mediumship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article creation

I'm researching the subject of this article. Dreadlocke 06:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

JREF

The information about JREF merely looks like an advertisement for the group, and adds nothing to this article. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The information about the JREF is relevant, as it highlights the lack of evidence that mediumship is real. The JREF challenge was set up as a response to mediumship (see the JREF wikipedia article). I think that mentioning it here offers another perspective to what runs the risk of being a largely pro-belief article.

Also, I think it rather odd that you feel the need to remove my text without discussion, but call for discussion when I replace it. Stevepaget 22:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You may find it odd, but the onus is on the editor adding information to an article to back it up, please see WP:V Burden of evidence. I'm the one who put the JREF statement as currently worded in the Mediumship article - then I decided to remove it because it really added nothing and looked like a mere advertisement. Neither JREF nor the blurb shows anything about the lack of evidence that mediumship is real. JREF is mentioned in Medium (spirituality) which talks about the practioners of Mediumship. I think the JREF information is relevant there, but not necessarily in this article. Feel free to argue in favor of it's inclusion - I may be easily swayed since I put it there to begin with...rewriting an earlier version of it... :)

By the way, you might want to review the three revert rule before you violate a Wikipedia policy by reverting more than three times in 24 hours. I only mention this after seeing the warning on your user page. I'd hate to see it added to.. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, this isn't a "pro-belief article". It merely states what Mediumship is, it makes no judgement either way. It has a "fraud" section, which explains the other side of the story. I find that some "skeptics" on Wikipedia try to slant articles about the paranormal with a negative perspective that seems to merely be a vehicle for their own POV. I also believe there may be a bit too much emphasis given to JREF, so I think it best to be judicious in it's utilization. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the need for the editor to provide backing. What part of the section of text that I wrote do you disagree with? Is it not a matter of fact that mediumship is eligible for the JREF challenge? Is it not a matter of fact that no one has passed it? I provided a reference. What more do you need?

I won't revert it in 24 hours, but I will once that period has passed as you have not really justified removing factual material which is relevant to the topic. The comments on my talk page were added by user who was banned for leaving spurious warnings. I have not removed them to show good faith.

On a wider note, the "fraud" section of this article is one thing, but at no point does this article suggest that mediumship might not actually exist at all. It seems to take the existence of spirit communication for granted, and grudgingly accepts that there are some people who have faked it. What is lacking is the fact that it may *all* be fiction and fraud. Shouldn't this be added? Stevepaget 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't be using this Talk page to discuss our personal opinions, thanks. --- LuckyLouie 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't using this talk page as a platform for my personal views, but I shall retract my statement nonetheless. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If the warning on your user page was a spurious one put there by a user banned for doing such things, then you should remove it. Or request that someone else does. Leaving it there serves no purpose, IMHO. You want me to remove it? Dreadlocke ☥ 00:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be good, thanks. Of course, it's not even in the right place. Stevepaget 00:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Challenges to mediumship

Neither JREF nor Zammit's "million dollar challenges" are significant enough to warrant their own section. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Spirits & Mediums = Fact?

Statements such as:

Mediumship defines two distinct types of phenomena that can occur through mediums, the first is communication, known as “mental mediumship", and the second is manipulation of energies and energy systems, known as "physical mediumship". A spirit who communicates with a medium, either verbally or visually, is known as a spirit communicator. A spirit who uses a medium to manipulate energy or energy systems is called a spirit operator. A spirit operator can, and often does communicate.

..make it seem as if Wikipedia acknowledges as fact that mediums communicate with spirits, spirits manipulate energy, etc. How about specifying, at the start of the article, "In Spirituality, mediumship defines..." etc. --- LuckyLouie 06:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the wording as it is. It in no way indicates that Wikipedia acknowledges anything as fact other than the definition or meaning of what Mediumship is, and the components of it. Saying "In Spirituality" doesn't really make sense to me....unless you meant "spiritualism", but even that qualifier is unnecessary. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So I guess I can go rewrite Scientology and remove all the "according to the church" and "within scientology" qualifiers so it reads (for example), "Xenu is an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy..." ---- LuckyLouie 07:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not playing the "compare with other articles" game. The way it was originally written in no way violated NPOV. It's made very clear in the opening paragraph that mediumship is part of parapsychology, then the next section is what mediumship itself defines - it needs no other qualifier. Each and every sentence does not need some type of "skeptical" qualifer to meet NPOV. But, after all is said and done, the changes you made appear to be ok. Dreadlocke ☥ 07:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LuckyLouie to some extent. "Mediumship defines two distinct types of phenomena that CAN occur"... Can they? The matter is under dispute. I know you dislike any skeptical qualifiers, Dreadlocke, but they really are the only way to keep the articles factual. Surely you accept that the above sentence makes an assumption of fact? Stevepaget 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to examine the overall article for NPOV, and there need to be sentences that capture not only the pure definition of a subject, but also the side of the "believers" who are always given short shrift. Read the Encyclopedia Briticannica version of "medium", it doesn't do what we do in having to make every single sentence into a skeptical disclaimer. It's not that I dislike any skeptical qualifiers, I just don't like them peppered everwhere throughout an article - I believe that Wikipedia skeptics are over the top in the way this is done. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that both viewpoints must be represented, and they are at present. The problem is that one side is represented by saying "skeptics say this...", whereas the believer standpoint is represented by "mediums CAN...". For truly neutral point-of-view, the wording should be the same for both sides. If we need a qualifier saying "skeptics say..." then there should be an equivalent qualifier for the believers: "supporters say..." Stevepaget 23:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I will amend the wording so that these statements of fact are removed and replaced with qualifiers equal to those on the skeptic's opinions. Stevepaget 12:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note here -- Spiritualism is a religion that has mediumship as a component of its services. Spiritism is a social movement that incorporates ideas about mediums as well. There are also secular mediums. Writing "In Spirituality" or "In Spiritualism" narrows the entry too much for people who just want to learn what it is. Although Randi's challenge is oft-quoted by online secular humanists to support their POV, his challenge does not define mediumship. It's like having an entry about the act of singing and having a huge section on Michael Jackson's lawsuits. The pages about Randi and skepticism are enough -- when people perform a search all pages with the criteria will pop up.JazzyGroove 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and this further backs the use of "parapsychology", which covers all mediums. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked your source references and they are Spiritualist or Spiritual religious or Spiritist belief sites. If the material you directly lifted to create the article comes from Spiritualist beliefs, what's wrong with acknowledging that they are Spiritist (or whatever is the precise term) beliefs? ---- LuckyLouie 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Spiritists (or whatever) to make that kind of call. I do know enough about parapsychology to back that view, as it encompasses all aspects of mediumship. Besides, the article contents comes from more than just what was "directly lifted" from the Spiritualist site. I'll ask you again not to comment on me or my presumed actions and stick to editorial comment on the contents of the article. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the Encyclopedia Briticannica version of "medium", it doesn't do what we do in having to make every single sentence into a skeptical disclaimer.

It does, more or less. From the EB Online: "Medium - in occultism, a person reputedly able to make contact with the world of spirits, especially while in a state of trance. A spiritualist medium is the central figure during a séance (q.v.) and sometimes requires the assistance of an invisible go-between, or control. During a séance, disembodied voices are said to speak, either directly or through the medium. Materialization of a disembodied spirit or of a specific part of a human body can allegedly take shape from a mysterious, viscous substance called ectoplasm that exudes from the medium's body and subsequently disappears by returning to its original source. At times the medium, or a material object, appears to float in the air (levitation)". 86.133.141.1 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the JREF challenge

The JREF challenge is, at present still functioning under the familiar rules. Some changes occur on April 1st 2007. From that date, the wording should be changed to reflect the status required for mediums to be eligible. I suggest changing it to "High-profile practitioners of mediumship are eligible..." Stevepaget 13:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the JREF challenge no longer applies on a wide scale, I don't see it's inclusion to be as notable as it had been. If it should be mentioned anywhere, it should be limited to those high-profile mediums who are eligible, not on a general information page. Plus, it now looks like Randi is using it to attack high-profile mediums, and the challenge is no longer a true challenge at all. I've been watching the discussion on the Project Paranormal page, but I haven't involved myself there. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you personally dislike Randi but the controversy around mediums and psychics involves him, (and if he is "attacking mediums" then the article certainly deserves to mention him) and you can't leave him out of an encyclopedia article simply because you dislike him. ___ LuckyLouie 20:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about my "personal" opinion of Randi, but I still abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines where his notability and relevance are concerned. I'm not currently suggesting he be "left out", I'm saying the challenge should be left out, since it now has a much narrower scope. I do feel that Randi's "opinion" should be appropriately minimized wherever it is mentioned, but I cannot look at Wikipedia policies and say it has to be left out completely.

I strongly suggest that you limit your comments to content and not the contributor, as it clearly states in the Wikipedia policy on no personal attacks. Do not continue with your comments about me. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Randi has never been scientifically relevant. However, as a matter of thoroughness, it might be argued that he should be given a brief mention, and even that his challenge should be given a brief mention. If Randi's challenge is mentioned, of course, the million dollar challenge to skeptics which challenges them to come up with valid arguments against the evidence for the survivalist hypothesis should also be mentioned (it does not ask them to prove a negative). The two challenges are equally irrelevant and equally idiotic in their presentation and structure. I have not thoroughly researched either one, however. I think rather than have this silly war of the million dollar challenges we should leave out the whole thing. It will only confuse readers. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. OK, I get confused between all the paranormal articles, and now I see you already have the Zammit million dollar challenge. Well, If y'all want to keep those two silly things in an encyclopedia, which really ought to focus on reputable things, who really cares? It only makes skepticism look bad, because it is such an ad ad hominem unscientific focus.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, I vote for getting rid of them both! And I totally agree, Randi's opinion is not at all scientifically relevant and should be appropriately identified as lacking such credibility and miminimized accordingly. I don't see how the JREF challenge needs to be mentioned in every single paranormal article, it's worth nothing scientifically and only has a minimal interest value. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not mentioned in the parapsychology article (see suggestion below under "Why in the world," and that's because we're presenting the consensus in a scientific field. Study of mediumship is part of parapsychology. Randi challenge maybe ought to be mentioned, because it gets so much attention. But it should be maybe part of a popular culture section, or a whole skeptical article. Not just thrown in like it is a valid criticism. Alternately, write up a response to it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why in or out of the world

Is there a page on "Mediumship" and a page on "Medium (spirituality)"? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a good reason for putting it under parapsychology rather than spirituality. Parapsychology is a scientific field, so you don't have to present the opinion of everyone, but only the scientific consensus (or debate I guess) within the field. This prevents skeptics from putting in weasel words or from having a field day with the main article. And you can simply point this out, and then say that the skeptics ought to create articles like "Skeptical view of medium," and put their full and complete arguments there. In such an article, it is NPOV to present the skeptical consensus, without more than a mention of the pro side. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but do you think it will really work that way, or will the skeptics only find more firepower by attacking parapsychology (and therefore mediumship) as a "pseudoscience" and using the mainstream scientific community's majority to really rule and attack a now "more scientific" article on mediums? I'm also concerned that the creation of "skeptical viewpoint" articles will only result in a POV fork that is not allowed. Can of worms... Dreadlocke ☥ 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If the article is shifted to represent only a parapsychological perspective, then those sources would need to be used in the text. As it is, the article is comprised largely of text lifted from sources such as The First Spiritual Temple http://www.fst.org/mediumship.htm which do not necessarily represent the views of parapsychologists. --- LuckyLouie 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there might be a problem with the sourcing. Still, as parapsychology got its start in spiritualism, there should be lots of sources. I'm no expert here.

As far as whether the skeptics could crack the protection, I don't think so. They haven't been able to, yet, on the parapsychology page (it takes monitoring) and I don't know how they could, given the rules as they are now phrased. If they have their own pages, and a section on the main page, there's no reason they should want to, except wicked gnawing malice and cussedness (:. Here are two places to look: scientific consensus, and here. I'll look over the POV fork thing, as that might be a show stopper.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read the POV fork thing. I don't know whether this qualifies or not. I based the parapsychology solution on the treatment given creationism in the evolution article. Maybe the pages mediumship and medium (spirituality) should be merged. Put the article under parapsychology, to create a viewpoint that doesn't have to take in every single thing. Put most of the current content under a heading "Modern mediumism" or something, which would preserve current sourcing (which needs work anyway). Make clear that "supposed," "claimed," and "said to be," etc. are inappropriate because this is about a certain subject, and if it isn't real it's fake (I mean, a medium communicates with spirits, and if not, then he/she isn't a medium). Have a large section "Mediumism and science," which would be NPOV (and will require a lot of research to balance). This should also be merged with the "Channeller" page. There's no reason for (at least) 3 pages on the same topic. It's quite a project. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Dreadlocke says on one of the talk pages "I thought there was a difference between being a channel and being a medium, that a channel actually allowed a spiritual entity to "take over" a body, whereas a medium passed on messages from an external or psychic source." I don't think there has historically been any difference. They're the same phenomenon. Mediumism is basically, I thought, passing on spirit messages by whatever means, materilization, trance, clairaudience, whatever.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know what the truth about that is, but mediums seem to pass on information from spirits while channels like JZ Knight claim they actually leave their body and allow an entity (not necessarily a dead one) to take over their body.

I’ve seen several bios or adverts that identify a person as both a medium and a channel, such as Laura Scott, which includes a comment from one of her clients: “Part of what made my reading with Laura so special is her ability to “channel” spirit in addition to her mediumship.”

I haven’t really researched it much, but I’ve heard the two are different.

Dreadlocke ☥ 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I looked it up here, and got:

A predominantly Spiritualistic term applied to a person who regularly, and to a greater or lesser extent at will, is involved in the production of psi in the form mental and/or physical phenomena.

So, I guess if you're gonna be a medium, you'd better be regular about it.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

While I can see why the idea of making the article mainly parapsychological in basis may seem like the best solution, I feel that this would limit the scope of the article. Mediumship is more of a cultural or religious phenomena than a scientific one, the majority of mediumship takes place in spiritualist churches. Most practices that involve a psychical element within their belief system will attract criticism from sceptic community, this is unavoidable, and we should not feel that we must be backed into a corner on any article as a result of this and only represent the scientific angle. Ultimately this would be against Wikipedia policy, while many people would like to see a scientific POV adopted this is not the case and we should maintain a balance of the popular/cultural and scientific views. In my opinion this will create the best most rounded article. - Solar 12:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Solar, that's a good way of looking at it. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to Martinphi). That's a very interesting glossary, I haven't seen it before. I note that even though the entry on "Medium" refers to other definitions, it doesn't refer to "Channeling", and the definion for Channel is different than medium - even though the definition for medium is pretty vague.... In doing more research, I've found that Channel is a term used in the United States to refer to someone who isn't communicating with the dead, but instead a living yet non-corporeal being. So there is definitely a difference between a channel and a medium. I'm continuing to look for a definitive source for that. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Solar that there's no reason to think that the article can be harmed by skeptics. I don't necessarily think it should be put under parapsychology, but that doesn't limit the article, rather it expands it to science. Just put in a heading "Modern spiritualism," and you've got it.

Dreadlocke, I'll be interested to see what you find out about channel vs. medium. But I'll bet no medium worth his spacy look would be unable to communicate with an angel, say, and they aren't "the dead." I thought it was like the difference between telekinesis and psychokinesis (none). BTW, I replied to your email, but I don't know how that works on here, so did you get it? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, yeah! I got your reply to my email! I just responded to ya...Dreadlocke ☥ 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Medium (spirituality)

This article and Medium (spirituality) address precisely the same topic (as far as I can tell), and that's a "good reason" to merge according to Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Merging the latter page to this one will mean that we won't need to use either "spirituality" or "parapsychology" to disambiguate the page, leaving categorization to the article itself. — Elembis (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, but it will have to be under some category, since "medium" has other meanings. I suggest "parapsychology," because it does not limit the scope, (can have a section or sub-article on "Modern mediumism") but it does put it under a scientific field, so the viewpoint can be limited somewhat within NPOV rules. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no major objections to merging Medium (spirituality) into Mediumship, other than it seems Mediumship covers a broader and more historical perspective than does Medium - which seems to focus on individual mediums and current information and studies. This article was originally created with material that was objected to in the Medium article - I rescued it and improved it. Now here we are, big flamola discussions about content, NPOV and merging Medium into Mediumship...it's an interesting circle that both amuses and amazes me. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. For us skeptics, that also leaves a lot of room for scientific investigations into mediumship, which would be terribly damning. But for us true believers, it leaves room to mention such things as the cross-correspondences, and many peer-reviewed articles in the JOP.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Medium" has other meanings, but I don't think "mediumship" does (see "mediumship" on Google). That means the resulting article can be titled "Mediumship" without "(spirituality)" or "(parapsychology)" appended to it, so any categorization controversies will involve the article's content but not its title. That's the idea, anyway. — Elembis (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent information, Elembis! Sounds like another good reason to merge! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Channelling

P.P.S. The article on channelling should also be merged into medium. The reason to merge to "medium" is that "medium" is the older, historical term, used more than a hundred years ago and investiagted by the SPR. Channelling is more New Age.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with just merging Channelling into Medium into Mediumship. The more I read, the more of a distinct difference I'm seeing between a Medium and a Channel - at least in recent US history. It might be better if we created a Channeling (new age) article that describes the recent utilization of "Channel" in the United States. Then again, because they're so closely intermixed, perhaps a "channel" section in the Mediumship article would do fine. Thoughts? Dreadlocke ☥ 21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Either way. You could just describe the difference in a "Mediumship" article. That would be highly useful context for readers. Good idea to have it under "Mediumship." But whatever the case, I don't want an article where every other word is "supposed," or "claimed," or "said to be." That is so lame. All one has to do is make clear whose perspective it is. I don't want skepticism or affirmation as part of the definition/summary, either. So, if the article is not under a specific umbrella, such as "spirituality" or "parapsychology," we have to find another way to limit this. Any ideas? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-published material

Why is material published by the JREF not allowed, but it is OK to cite sources such as those in the references section of this page? Surely those spiritualist pages are also "self-published"? Please argue this point before deleting these challenge details. Stevepaget 08:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the point. The point was that the Zammit challenge was said to be sourced improperly because the cited source was self-published, but the JREF could also be considered self-published.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fraud section

Why is Houdini's crusade against phoney mediums ignored? --- LuckyLouie 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's being ignored as much as it just wasn't thought of to begin with. Feel free to add it. If the merger goes through, it's a moot point anyway, because it's already part of the Medium (spirituality) article. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

POV riddled

Lots of non-neutral POVs in this article. Not even sure where to begin. I'll start weeding, but don't consider my edits complete. There should be more. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Types of mediumship section

I was going to start editing but realized this entire section is POV with no reliable authoritative sources to back any of it up. Very briefly it says "According to Spiritualists..." in the first paragraph, but doesn't carry that through the rest of the section. Then there is the question of what spiritualists? Are these notable spiritualists? Are they famous spiritualists? Certainly not all spiritualists claim that, for example, mediumship has anything to do with telepathy. Some feel that the spirit takes over the body like in possessions, which wouldn't be telepathy at all.

Throughout the mental mediumship section it keeps referring to gifts. Gift? Gift from whom? This is all POV.

Way too many POV problems to list. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if this section is anyone's pet project, but I'm going to add the POV tag until it is sorted out. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's Dreadlocke's pet, and maybe can be sourced better when s/he gets back. But it has usefull info, which in my knowledge seem accurate. But, the source is First Spiritual Temple I believe. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This article can be a well-written article on Mediums, I believe, and I'm not saying it's not a start. But each controversial statement needs to be sourced individually, with notable sources. I don't think SpiritLincs meets that criteria. Considering that Mediumship got its start with Spiritualism, and that Spiritualism has been around for centuries with many of their written works in the public domain, I think we can find better sources. I don't think many of the statements here are the consensus among Spiritualists or even modern day New Agers. Even consensus statements need a statement identifying them as beliefs of Spiritualists or New Agers instead of presenting them as fact. For example, in the beliefs section of Christianity, each thing that they believe in is worded with a "Most Christians believe..." intro. It doesn't have to be a bunch of "claimed" and "alleged" cliches, but the believer needs to be identified in each statement about the beliefs. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, I thought this would eventually end up as a "modern spiritualism" section or sub-article. But most of the concepts seem correct. Maybe I just don't know, because I haven't studied it even though I have family who are spiritualists.

I don't think many of the statements here are the consensus among Spiritualists or even modern day New Agers'

Hmmm, what do you see?

Even consensus statements need a statement identifying them as beliefs of Spiritualists

Yeah, but doesn't it? Most of it is written as from spiritualists. You mean, needs to be "some spiritualists"?

Stuff like the "clairvoyance" section needs to be harmonized with an authoritative source. You're totally right that we need someone who really knows the historical sources of spiritualism. One bad thing is we have to re-define a lot of terms. For instance, the article on Clairvoyance doesn't apply here, because, in accord with the PA, it says clairvoyance comes from an external physical source. It isn't seeing a spirit, aura, or the visual images fed to you by a spirit.

Stuff like the Aura, Od, and Ectoplasm articles could use work.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not just deleting this section, it is good and solid information on Mediumship. I rescued it from skeptics a while back, and there are sources for it - I believe they are actually in the references section now - including references from other encyclopedias as well as Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. I just need to place them in the article so everyone can easily sort it all out. Unfortunately, I was on a business trip and managed to catch the flu, so I'm out of commission at the moment, but I took a quick look and saw all the "action" on this article and wanted to put my two-cents in before it was all wiped away. And I do not believe it is pov to describe the meanings of each term - they do not each need a "skeptical qualifier" included in each paragraph or sentence to meet WP:NPOV. I'll be back. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"And I do not believe it is pov to describe the meanings of each term - they do not each need a "skeptical qualifier" included in each paragraph or sentence to meet WP:NPOV." I agree. Did someone say they did? There should be no problem if defined from the paranormal/spiritualistic perspective. Get well fast.... smile lots.... Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to take this section bit by bit, so let me just explain what I'm talking about with the terms definitions for now. If I had the time, I'd just rewrite it myself : )

There's a lot of "Some say this..." and "Some say that..." and it doesn't actually say who said any of it. I agree that black and white definitions aren't POV. For example the definition of an automobile is pretty straightforward and hard to disagree with. But "Some this", "Some that" suggests (correctly) that there are multiple definitions for these terms that are directly related to who's doing the defining.

Just a brief example: As a reader I might want to know who said "the clairvoyant profess to see a Spirit form in the flesh" if I've always heard that they see them as whispy, shadowy, or insubstantial. I'm not saying the latter is the right definition. I'm just illustrating another point of view. Who's point of view is it? Well, I don't know. I would need a source to determine that. Get what I'm saying?

These aren't "the" definitions of the terms, but rather "a" definition of the terms - a definition that isn't attributed to anyone.

This isn't a believer vs. skeptic issue. It's about making the article a good reference piece. As it stands now, a journalist who is writing an article about mediums and looking at Wikipedia to use as a source wouldn't have any idea where these definitions came from, whether they are the prevailing thoughts of mediums, or whether the source itself is credible.--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 07:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. Let's see if Dreadlocke can source it and clarify. I may put in a bit about how the definitions of psychic senses are different in spiritualism. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with you Nealparr. What I was referring to were edits like this: [1], where an editor adds "skeptical qualifiers" to each and every paragraph or sentence.

I'll start searching for more sources, but I definitely wouldn't mind help in finding sources! I believe that the Mediumship article is probably better served by using Parpsychology sources for the main article contents, adding to it the flavor if the different groups that believe or practice mediumship. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll help out when I get some time freed up. There's a lot of sources out there to draw from. Those skeptical qualifiers should be replaced by direct quotes if possible because that allows the reader to make up their own mind. For example (probably a bad one), "According to Sylvia Browne, mediums can see a person's angels surrounding them." That works a whole lot better than "Mediums maintain that they can see a person's angels surrounding them." The first is saying that it's not the opinion of the article, but rather Sylvia Browne's opinion. The second is saying boldly that this article supports the statement "mediums maintain that they can see angels" as fact. That's a bit of a non-neutral leap : ) Anyway, I'll help when I get a chance. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back and I'm starting to search for sources and references. I think I'm going to take this from the parapsychology persepctive first and use references from that. Would anyone like to collaborate with me on looking at and evaluating the sources, then editing the article to match? I'm considering creating a sandbox and placing the references and content in there for now. Thoughts anyone? Help anyone?  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 05:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology may not be the way to go. Really, parapsychologists were created from the old school term "psychical researchers" and were people who wanted to distance themselves away from mediumship. They were getting a whole lot of criticism on the survival studies front and wanted to switch to other phenomena.

Mediumship, as opposed to channeling or psychics (which are New Age terms), can't really be divorced from its Spiritualism roots. Despite what the television show "Medium" says, or the trend today to not call oneself psychic because that's an icky term and instead reclaim "medium" because it doesn't have as bad of conotations (in the present day), mediumship is all about Spiritualism. There's at least one important way it differs from clairvoyance and psychic abilities as well. A medium (according to the spiritualists) is in some way "controlled" by spirits. Whether this is speaking while in trance, or convulsions, or moving the planchette on a Ouija board around, or some other thing, it's a mild temporary form of possession. According to the original and most prevalent use of mediumship, that is. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 07:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great information, Neal! I thought mediumship was solidly in the corner of parapsychology, even though my initial research led me to information about Spiritism and Spiritualism, neither of which seemed to capture the entire subject. I'll research both, and any helpful sites you may know of or encounter for either would be helpful! Just pop a note on my talk page or even in my sandbox for mediumship. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mode of decease important to communication?

Is it normal/harder to channel people who died quietly and slowly, or violently, like skull crushed on pavement? Like twins I mean.

Juan Herrera Juanfhj 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Headings

I moved the headings-- I think they were moved before. I would think it would start with history. That's the way other things do. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Refuted info?

It has been brought to my attention that the information in the Mediumship#Fraud_in_mediumship section may in fact contain data that has been refuted. We should investigate this so both sides can be presented for NPOV purposes. Ideas anyone? (well, I know at least one editor has ideas...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 05:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since what's there is mostly about Eusapia Palladino, check out that page. Also Mina Crandon, which may also give you a laugh, depending on your sense of humor. Both pages approved by your informant. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Martin! I appreciate the infomative assist. The Crandon stuff is very funny...and kinda gross..altering her vagina??? Augh!

So my informant is correct, there is more to the story than what is in this article. Honestly, it was a long time ago that I added that section, so I'm not sure what I was going to do with it next - it's clearly incomplete - it's about fraud, not lack-of-fraud! On a side note, at the time I was putting this article together, the Palladino article was a mere stub. I probably should have done more research, but I think I got sidetracked...and hey, that's what all these other editors are for!!  :) Enough excuses. I don't think it should be deleted (shouldn't have been in the first place, that's what npov tags are for). Anyway, let's either delete the darned section or finish the story, I'm not really attached to it. Whadda think? Dreadlocke ☥ 09:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(Surgically altered her vagina? What??) - Dreadlocke ☥ 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3