Talk:Mediumship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Revert

I've reverted because the other version attributes a statement to dictionary.com, but dictionary.com does not support that statement. I found a statement supported by dictionary.com on the same page that says essentially the same thing, and unless another source is found, I think this is the appropriate way to do citations. Antelan ^talk 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the version that I am reverting to cites spiritualism, so qualifiers should still not be needed in every sentence. All that I tightened was the intro. Antelan ^talk 01:36, 23 June

2007 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict, and my version is in there now. Revert it back if you want while we discuss. I can provide sources for the current version, so why not let it stand a bit?

I just re-arranged the refs, and I took out the dictionary.com ref- every statement here is cited, and the definitions aren't controversial anyway. Going to make one more change, because non-spiritualists also use the term. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You reverted all of my edits, which took time considering that I had to find what the sources actually said, not what the article fallaciously claimed they said. You even changed around the entire structure and content of the intro paragraph and called it a copyedit. If this isn't WP:OWN, I don't know what is. Antelan ^talk 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Antelan. The intro has reasons for everything in it. It's gone through a lot of discussion. You took out the acknowledgment that the term is used other places besides spiritualism.

However, if you look now, the intro says pretty much the same things you wanted it to say. What's wrong with it? I just put back in one piece of your version which was simpler and better. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say "Can someone who is not me or Martinphi please look over the differences between my last edit and the current version and weigh in (perhaps providing a third option)? I don't think that it's a big difference, but I do think that the intro's language should be tighter and less suggestive than it is now. Input would be very helpful." but I didn't type it out fast enough and we already got one opinion below. Antelan ^talk 02:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to Antelan's version as per suggestion of Martinphi: "Go ahead and revert back, I'm not going to war with you. But our versions are so similar, why bother? ". IMO, the qualifying phrase "It is thought that" improves the article and avoids "flat statement of fact" in the lead. - LuckyLouie 02:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have that turn of phrase in there because that is what is said in the dictionary.com source, which was wrongly attributed before. Antelan ^talk 02:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That source isn't even needed. And now the lead leaves the reader wondering what physical phenomena means. What do you have against my version? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the term is not just used in spiritualism. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you felt there was so little difference between yours and Antelan's version that it was, at best, a minor issue? I've added back note of physical manifestations [1]. Hopefully, that works for you. - LuckyLouie 03:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What concerned me about the previous version is that we made a claim and attributed it to a source, but in fact the source didn't say what we claimed. Hence I found a similar claim that was backed by the source. Whether or not that claim is even necessary may be a legitimate content question, Martinphi, so I'll leave it to a third party to evaluate that. I'm out for the night, so have a good evening, gentlemen.Antelan ^talk 03:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to war, either. In my opinion, the article is improved by using a more mainstream source such as dictionary.com. - LuckyLouie 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope the current changes are acceptable. I explained them in the edit summaries. The actual content hasn't changed I don't think, except it isn't acting as if this is only about spiritualism. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Read sources, then cite them

1. Martinphi, you triply sourced a sentence (Some mediums are also said to be able to produce physical paranormal phenomena such as materilizations.), but not one of the sources backed the claim of materializations.
2. According to the Parapsychological Association itself in the link that you provided, mediumship is "predominantly Spiritualistic". If you want to assert that the term is not just spiritualistic, back the claim with a source.
3. Therefore, I have modified the lead. Antelan ^talk 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources. If it's "predominantly Spiritualistic" then it not spiritualistic sometimes. And unless you are merely trying to give me a hard time, you'll see that this is uncontroversial, since a lot of people use the term medium as one who communicates with the dead and are not Spiritualists: John Edward fans, for instance. So you have no real problem. Unless you are just trying to give me a hard time by making issues where none should exist.

If you but read the Carroll source- with which I'm sure you are familiar- you would see that it says:

"produce voices or apports, ring bells, float or move things across a darkened room, produce automatic writing or ectoplasm,"

The PA source says "is involved in the production of psi in the form mental and/or physical phenomena."

Just above, it says "MATERILIZATION: A phenomenon of physical mediumship in which living entities or inanimate objects are caused to take form, sometimes from ectoplasm. Compare Dematerialization."

Please stop edit warring and start reading the soruces. This is totally beyond the pale.

Antelan, I'm asking you to revert yourself. I've just proven to you that the lead is well sourced. If you are really in good faith here, you'll revert. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

1. John Edward is a spiritualist.
2. Mediums are psychics, according to the 2000 version of American Heritage Dictionary.
3. The materialization info was not clearly cited (an entire glossary was cited), so I will identify the relevant section of the glossary and add the claim back. Antelan ^talk 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

1. John Edward's fans are not all spiritualists, but do refer to him as a medium
2. What about it?
3. Yes, the materialization info and the other needs better citation in the glossary. That doesn't excuse the edit warring. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please return to the previous version, and we'll edit from there- it has better phrasing, and the sourcing, as above, is just as good, or we can easily make it that way. Otherwise, I'm finished. You've won. Good for you. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the materialization info back on your behalf. I updated a citation that was previously pointing to an entire glossary and highlighted the relevant term. I haven't won anything except for increased precision within the introduction of this article. Antelan ^talk 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did some things. But you used edit warring to get rid of my much-better-phraised intro. What you should have done is insert a few fact tags, and explain on the talk page. That would have been the polite friendly way to go about things. Instead, you just reverted to your own verion. Now, if you really think you wrote it better, ok. But as to citation, you just needed to ask me. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Huge biased edit/deletion

FYI - There was a rather extensive and biased edit on June 20th by 90.199.109.173 (Talk), who appears to be Daniel Lee, Author (Talk | contribs). Note that 90.199.109.173 added "Daniel Lee" to the list of "Well-known professed mediums" (which I have removed,) and immediately afterwards Daniel Lee, Author made edits to remove the word "professed" from that section title and added his name to the Daniel Lee disambiguation page (see here.)

The edit entirely deleted the "Skeptical perspective", "Fraud in mediumship", and "The 1908 Naples Sittings Repeated" sections. It also removed many qualifiers throughout the article, such as changing "appears to speak" to "speaks" or "say they can" to "can". Those edits and deletions were clearly pushing a particular bias, unbalancing the article, and removing a neutral point of view. It's hard to tell how much of 90.199.109.173's changes remain, but I note that the "Fraud in mediumship" and "The 1908 Naples Sittings Repeated" sections are still gone. Should they be restored? Also, people should look over the article to see whether some of the biased changes in wording remain. -- HiEv 06:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

The latest research from the VERITAS laboratory addresses these criticisms, and the results are still positive.[15] "The results are still positive" according to who? Controversy sections with rebuttals are problematic, this section needs work.- LuckyLouie 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections with rebuttals are problamatic. What's problamatic about a controversy section with rebuttals? –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It pushes POV depending on which rebuttal you put last and how it's worded. I suggest you modify it to read, According to (source), the latest research from the VERITAS laboratory addresses these criticisms, and the results are still positive.- LuckyLouie 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do it later when I have time. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

LL, I don't know how to get away from seeming to give Schwartz the last word. The fact is that he addressed the criticism in the last study, and as far as I know there hasn't been a rebuttal. So the state of the actual debate is that Schwartz has spoken last.

We need to include the double-blind criticism specifically, because it was one of the major ones, and the triple-blind study was specifically designed to address this criticism. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the source, there were many points of criticism, and nowhere in the source does it say that the double-blind issue was "the major" criticism -- it seems that's a judgement you have taken it upon yourself to make. To be truly neutral you'd have to enumerate every point of the CSI critique and list which ones Schwartz addressed and which ones he did not. Selecting only one criticism to answer and concluding positive results is POV on your part. - LuckyLouie 04:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how technical or accusatory one is being. It's pretty obvious that the lack of double-blind protocol is either the, or one of the main criticisms, but you're right that this is a judgment on my part. Your latest change seems to have taken care of the problem. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Attributing the critique to Hyman is fine, but I'm slightly puzzled as to why you'd make note of Schwartz's response but leave out Hyman's rebuttal in the same article? -LuckyLouie 04:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same article, but good point. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. - LuckyLouie 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for yours. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The triple-blind study does address all of the criticisms spelled out in the article. You are invited to read it, and you will see that the new study design completely addresses the criticisms of Hyman, et. al (which is why we haven't heard from them about it). Sdaconsulting 19:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be correct, and that is what the study was designed to do. But we need a source saying so. Do you know of one? –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of the study as "addressing all of Hyman's criticisms" or "designed to address all of Hyman's criticisms" is an opinion rather than an authoritatively-supported fact. If proponents wish to insert their viewpoint, I suggest a crystal-clear attribution such as, "(Spokesman X) says that the study addresses all the previous criticisms and still achieves positive results". - LuckyLouie 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Still dividing things up into "proponents" and skeptics, eh? –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I think there may have been objections to merging channelling here. But it seems the same phenomenon to me, and all we'd have to do is add maybe part of the list in the current article Channelling (mediumistic), and put in a section on channelling in the New Age. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Channelling (mediumistic) looks like it's mostly just a list of "Books and Channelled Texts, Entities and Mediums", most of which are not even notable enough to warrant their own articles! The only objection I'd have in merging these articles is that Mediumship is a half-way decent article and would be polluted by this list. The solution? Delete the list (and the massive External links) and merge the rest. Ewlyahoocom 06:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said, part of the list. I think a part of it would be good, the major texts. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, if we delete the entire list, somebody is going to be mad. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody will be mad either way. Maybe we could move the list to a new page e.g. List of channelled texts. Note that there's also a category Category:Channelled texts but it's lightly populated. Ewlyahoocom 03:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be a solution. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know all the ins and outs of how such things are discussed and decided, but there are comments on the Talk:Channelling (mediumistic) page (in part in the Merge tags section) that indicate a very similar discussion almost a year ago, and the result seemed to be not merge. Objections included specifically articulated distinctions between chanelling and mediumship. A comment was made today in the edit summary on the article page that the merge will be made in "a couple more days." This seems inappropriate given the objections that have been voiced going back almost a year. Perhaps someone would like to comb through both (or 3 or 4??) pages and pull together the arguments for and against? It doesn't seem proper that only recent comments made in the "right" spot are what count. -Exucmember 05:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The objections you link to only say "let's just leave them separate for now and remove the tags. 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. Dreadlocke"

That's not correct, and that editor hasn't objected. Wikipedia articles basically follow the current editorial consensus. So unless someone has a current objection, there's no reason not to merge. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Renaming to List of channelled texts, and merging the rest here. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The merge of mediumship with channelling was a terrible mistake

Frankly, i think the decision to merge Chnnelling with Mediumship was ill-thought out and a poor choice all around. It had been done by the time i started working on the article or i would have voted against it. I find it annoying, a-historical, and generally an impediment to clear writing. The two are vastly diffeent topics and never should be conflated.

Not only does the channeller always allow take-over of the body (as opposed to only some mediums doing so), the channeller never relays the homely and intimate messages from the beloved dead but always speaks with the Voice of Authority -- and often a non-human authority at that. The words of channellers are invariably meant for guidance and are usually published. The voices of mediums are rarely published (the Cook-Jones collaboration of 1919 is a rare, and therefore valuable exception) because they are meant for the ears of those for whom the messages are carried. At this point i despair that anyone here will understand what i am talking about. But there is a difference, and those of us familiar with the Spiritual Churches know it.

Have any of the current editors here even got a clue about the toppic? Have any had experience with the material? Witnessed a demonstration of mediumship in a Spiritual Church? If not, are you working on this article just so you can mess it up by conflating mediumship with channelling then throwing Randi-tags all over the resultant stew?

Seriously, i feel that the aim here has been to destroy any coherence or integrity the article had in the past and to resist any attempt to give it cohenerence or integrity now.

Look at it -- the talk mage is labelled "paranormal" and "parapsychologu" -- what on Earth does that have to do with Spiritualism?

As for me, i am just going to keep working at this thing, trying to bring it into line with other Spiritualism articles. Look for more references, more quotations, more definitions, and more citations.

catCatherineyronwode (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know what the paranormal or parapsychology have to do with mediumship, then I question how much you know about the topic. Concerning the other things you say, what you need is sources. If you have the sources which support you, and they are reliable ones, at least per this subject, then I'll support you on re-establishing the channelling article. However, if you continue to be uncivil, and to WP:OWN this article, and to act as if you are the only one who has a say in it- you will find that all your hard work goes for nothing in the end. I'm not threatening you, I'm warning you about the way it works, in the hope that you will start doing things better. A lot of what you do is valuable. But you will be driven out of WP like many before you if you keep acting like this. They will eventually block you entirly. Your edits will get reverted, and all your hard work will have gone for nothing. If this is what you want, don't listen to me. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that merging Channelling and mediumship is not a good idea. Channelling is different from mediumship and I would have thought there was enough material to substantiate it. In fact, it is a problem with the popular use of the words to confuse the two. I must look into this. I never saw the original but if it was just a list, then fair enough. I find it strange not to have even a subtitle on this topic. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was a difference between a medium who remains conscious and a "trance medium" who gets taken over. Wickland's wife was a trance medium, as was Edgar Cayce, the "sleeping prophet".

The Unification Church accepts the idea of communication with dead people and with angels. See Hyo Nam Kim, who channeled for Dae Mo Nim; and Heung Jin Moon. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are all sorts of mediums, mental, deep trance, part trance, materilization. Clairaudient, clairsentient, clairvoyant, automatic writers, etc. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into that. Do you have any academic references? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on that. So far, all I have is lecture notes and unpublished papers. I need time. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to believe that there is a difference between channeling and mediumship. If so, I believe it is only a recent development that people see it that way. Also, the sources I know of usually either equate the two, or say they are different parts of the same sort of automatism. The early mediums spoke in trance as well as did other stuff. Basically, I'd like to see some sources which really draw the difference here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what the two have in common is that a disembodied spirit communicates to one or more people on earth. (For materialists, this is theoretically impossible, and they generally dismiss it.)

The difference - and I'm not sure who thinks it is significant - is the degree of consciousness of the medium or channeler.

In Doonesbury, when Boopsie channel Hunk-Ra, she is unaware of the zany or offensive things that she says (on Hunk's behalf) afterwards. I think she even goes in and out of trance spontaneously and so quickly that she doesn't even realize time has passed.

Carl Wickland's wife knew quite well that she was going to sleep (or starting the trance). She would lie down first. Edgar Cayce was called "The Sleeping Prophet" for the obvious reason.

I'm wondering if the issue of keeping the articles separate or together has been clouded by the objection that materialists or fundamentalists have toward either type of spiritual communication. (It reminds me of the split between deprogramming and exit counseling.)

I'd like to keep any information which the two 'things' have in common, on one page. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph from criticism

Others say that Gary Schwartz's studies such as The Afterlife Experiments have not provided competent scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness or that mediums can actually communicate with the dead. In the January/February 2003 issue of the Skeptical Enquirer, Ray Hyman charged that the research Schwartz presented is crucially flawed in a number of ways, including inappropriate control comparisons, inadequate precautions against fraud and sensory leakage, reliance on non-standardised and untested dependent variables, failure to use double-blind procedures, inadequate use of double-blind protocols, failure to independently check details the sitters endorsed as true, and the use of plausibility arguments to substitute for actual controls. Schwartz and Hyman debated these points in the March 2003 issue of the Skeptical Enquirer. In January 2007 Julie Beischel and Gary Schwartz published the results of a triple-blind study in EXPLORE The Journal of Science and Healing that also had positive results.

I removed this material from the article (twice). It is clearly slanted toward believers. It should be recognized that since mediumship is not accepted by the general public as a reliable method of communication (ever heard of a jury deciding a case based on the testimony of a dead guy?), the burden of proof is on people who claim they are mediums, not the other way around. A whole paragraph trying to pick apart the experimental methods of someone whose study showed that mediums are fake is off the point. Rracecarr (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that I think it probable that a jury has decided on such a basis. cat would know. And that paragraph seems quite informative. Unless you would like to simply present one side of things. I mean, Hyman is a skeptic, and that's what he said. What's wrong with it? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One problem is that the issue is presented as having two equal sides: 1) communication with dead people is possible, and 2) it isn't. From a scientific standpoint, these are not two equal hypotheses. One is an outstanding claim requiring hard evidence to back it up. If this article is going to include a discussion of scientific investigation of mediumship, this lopsidedness needs to be made clear. Rracecarr (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a reference to the undue weight provision of our Wikipedia:NPOV policy? I'm unfamiliar with claim that describing the ideas of two sides fairly has the effect of making them "equal" somehow. Would you expand on what you mean, please? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are we talking with?

Sorry for the joking tone of the heading, but I want to ask whether mediumship or channeling concerns only the concept of communicating with dead people. As the boy said in the film, "I see dead people - all the time." (no reference needed, you all know which film, right?)

When someone says they have been contacted by an angel and given a message, a warning, a vision, etc., is this called mediumship or "revelation" or what? (wishful thinking, hallucination, making it up aside) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well well well, Ed, to see you here ;). Revelations are typically from God, as far as I'm aware. 'Visitation' perhaps? They're bearing witness to a divine message, as opposed to letting it speak through them. On that subject, the Holy Spirit probably 'enthuses' people, at least in the old sense. --Wikinterpreter (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC).

Delusional people are always talking to themselves, whether they claim to be taking to a dead person or messengers of gods. The telling factor here is no medium ever relays a message beyond their own IQ. We have never received Einstein's next theory, or Mozart's next symphony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scifilosophy (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wording

I have removed some of the similar words, yet this article still contains 20 instances of the word 'claim', nearly all of which are unnecessary when talking about an ability/practice, not anyone's claims to be able to do it Phallicmonkey (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of claims. I don't think they're all unfounded, but I've removed some redundant ones and had a go at rewording some. Verbal chat 18:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i do think some of the edits are an improvement, but imho there is still a lot to be done Phallicmonkey (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"I have removed some of the similar words, yet this article still contains 20 instances of the word 'claim', nearly all of which are unnecessary when talking about an ability/practice"

When talking about psychics there are only claims, there are no abilities or practices. No psychic of any kind has ever been able to prove their ability exists, and every one that has tried has been proven to be delusional or a fraud. Until some psychic can prove their superpowers exist, there can only be claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scifilosophy (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheists and Agnostics

Have absolutely nothing to do with this article. Especially athiesm. The lack of belief, or the disbelief, in dieties and/or God/s has NOTHING to do with spirits. An athiest may believe in spirits, an agnostic may also. Just as an athiest may not believe in spirits, nor an agnostic.

Mentioning them in the criticism/controversy section is as pointless as addressing the fact that some skeptics are vegetarians. I've removed the section until a non-biased, ie. non-ignorant "omgz mediums are realzorz cause my dad said hi through onez!1!" morons who tend to screw around with this article with such pointless information, user rewrites it. 58.170.134.254 (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Atheists like evidence and reality, that is why they are not believers in gods. I have never met an atheist who would use their brain in regards to gods, then turn it off for the subject of spirits/ghosts/dead people, which is just another afterlife, grasp at immortality, belief system. People who think we can talk to the dead are merely creating a god which allows the dead to communicate with the living. If someone is an atheist but they believe in magic, psychic, fairytales of any kind, then they should apply the same critical analysis to their magic that they would apply to gods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scifilosophy (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Using "media" alone

At first glance this threw me, because the correct plural of "medium" is "mediums" when used in the mediumship context. I feel that "media" needs a describing word, in this case the word "news". So I altered the link slightly to take the reader directly to the "news media" article. HTH

Also, I am confused by the last part of that sentence: ". . . most traditional African and African diasporic traditions include mediumship as a central focus of religious practice." What is the difference between a "traditional African tradition" and a "traditional African diasporic tradition"? If instead one were to say ". . . most African and African-diasporic traditions . . .", would that not clarify the sentence?
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Research

Here are some sources backing up my recent edit:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2802178/Dr-Gary-Schwartz-to-Appear-on-the-PORTAL-Paranormal-Talk-Radio-Show http://www.mytelekinesis.com/scientific-proof-of-an-afterlife-.html

I will re-write them back into the article pending further comment. Spritebox (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. Both links do not accord with WP:SPAM, neither link appears to be a reliable source, and if you should find a reliable source, please watch your wording. Your usage of "many" is an example of weasel words (who and how many are "many"?).

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The research done by Schwartz has garnered mass attention, with people considering it to be proof of the afterlife. As for the source, I have seen people use BadPsychics as a source, which is equally bad just in an opposite direction. On balance, it seems that there is nothing wrong with my edit, as the fact that some see it as proof on some level cannot be reasonably refuted. Spritebox (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose these edits, non RS. Verbal chat 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, could you please provide reasons and suggestions for improvement? I'm new here, thanks Spritebox (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There can be no proof, as I understand it, Spritebox. Only "evidence". As I said, both links constitute SPAM and should not be used. Also, the usage of a bad link in another article is NEVER grounds to use a bad link; it is ONLY grounds to remove the bad link from the other article! And as I previously stated, the wording of your claim is misleading for readers. Please see if it can be reworded so as not to be confusing, and then find one or more reliable sources to back it up.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I will reword to evidence instead of proof. And thank you for that, that backs up my removal of content from another article currently being contested. I will look into gathering more sources, those were just a few picked up at a quick glance through google search results. Spritebox (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wise beyond your words, Spritebox. Since you say you are new here, let me welcome you to Wikipedia! You will soon learn that it is usually better to discuss than to continuously revert edits. Please check out Wikipedia's WP:3RR rule, so you can avoid being blocked. Also, although it's not always easy, we try to always assume good faith on the part of other editors. Again, welcome, and thank you very much for helping to improve Wikipedia!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name

By Wikipedia standards we pick the name for the article that's most commonly used to describe the topic, and that's not "mediumship". In fact the source used in the sentence that exdplains what mediumsip is doesn't define "mediumship" at all, but refers to "mediums". That would make a better title. So would spirit communication or something along those lines. "Mediumship" is just not a common term at all. DreamGuy (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, or at least make Spirit Communication etc redirect here. Spritebox (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and POV pushing

This is getting ridiculous -- SpriteBox, you can't just keep reverting the article to add content that pushes a POV based upon the claims of a source that fails WP:RS. Your most recent revert claimed that an explanation was needed to remove it or else you'd "report" the person, but an explanation WAS ALREADY GIVEN, both by the IP address account when he removed and further on his talk page when you were talking to him there and also by me in the edit comment when I removed it. You can't just keep putting it back. You need to follow our rules on WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. If you keep this up you will definitely get yourself blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you check out the source you will find that it is the homepage of a TV programme- not strictly a pro-mediumship article. Secondly, the paragraph disputed only describes the events, and the outcome of them, not explicitly state that it was due to psychic phenomena. Thirdly, the 'consensus' you speak of is very much a 2v1 matter, which would be fine if the IP had an account, as there is no guarantee that it could not be a sockpuppet of yours. (Note that I am not accusing you, merely outlining possibilities). I admit that there is obviously going to be some dispute over this content, and perhaps something could be included in the article saying that it is open to interpretation etc. I don't think you should jump to removing information just because it could be taken as promoting something, as this makes your actions a violation of WP:NPOV. I would be happy to discuss a compromise on the matter, for example putting in a statement on it as I have mentioned above. Spritebox (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the IP helping form the consensus has been blocked. Spritebox (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also removed this material as it lacks RS and a justification. There is also a better article for that material, but I will await RS to be presented here. Verbal chat 14:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a case of pro-mediumship sources (or those that speak remotely positively of it) are 'unreliable', whereas skeptical sites who give a POV are regarded as reliable because they are anti-mediumship. It is ridiculous, as NPOV seems to mean skeptical POV. I'm not talking about proof, but anything positive whatsoever is removed. This is not neutral, and makes Wikipedia a joke. Spritebox (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your tv show source is a primary source, and is in fact a promotional website for the show. It fails RS rather blatantly, especially for the claims you are attributing to it. At the moment NPOV doesn't come into assessing the source. Verbal chat 14:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I can't speak for the "skeptical sites", but I can speak for sensingmurder.co.nz. It's a promotional site that clearly fails RS. Plus, the "communicating with the spirits of the victims to uncover details of their life and death" is an exceptional claim. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (WP:V). If we were to concede that sensingmurder.co.nz was a RS, we would certainly not agree that it was an "exceptional source". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Leonora Piper

Leonora Piper(born Leonore Simmonds, 1857 - died 1950)- is the most famous trance medium in the history of Spiritualism. For a quarter of a century she provided the most convincing evidence for the reality of life after death or telepathy to some of the keenest, predominately male, minds in science. ref: The Spiritualists, The Passion for the Occult in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries by Ruth Brandon, Alfred A. Knopf, 1983 ref: Ghost Hunters, William James and the Search for Scientic Proof of Life After Death by Deborah Blum, The Penguin Press, 2006 ref: Studies in Spiritism by Amy Tanner, first introduction by G. Stanley Hall, page 18, Prometheus Press, 1994, orginally published by D. Appleton, 1910 This is what the materials have said for over a hundred years. How can you not know this and write or edit anything about parapsycholgy? How can you deny this? This a COLD HISTORICAL FACT. Kazuba (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC) This is as true as the world is round. She was the best. Well VERBAL are you going to put it back or do I have to do it again myself. Your arguments against this stuff are full of holes? Admit it. You are on unfamilar ground. Please reply Kazuba (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is puffery and trivia, never mind the errors of English. It might work better as an attributed quote, losing the trivia: "Leonora Piper is credited by some as 'the most famous trance medium in history'". The rest of it shouldn't be included. THat her article is a mess is no reason to spread it around. Verbal chat 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The reply above is copied from my talk page. I'll take this opportunity to remind editors of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Verbal chat 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You could have edited or contacted me about editing rather than deleting. I can not read your mind. Kazuba (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Animism

Someone (IP 150.164.21.46) added a link reference to a Portuguese Wikipedia article on Animism. This link was just added in a new paragraph under the Channeling section without any context or explanation. I've reverted this edit.

If someone wants to develop the topic of Animism as it relates to Mediumship and add it to this article, I think that would be a great idea. But please don't insert links into an article without explanation or reference. Frankaustx (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevance?

'In a New Zealand TV2 series presented by Rebecca Gibney called Sensing Murder, which aired on TVNZ beginning in 2006, three psychic mediums from Australia and New Zealand, Sue Nicholson, Kelvin Cruickshank and Deb Webber, armed only with photographs of the victims of unsolved murders, and purportedly no prior knowledge of the cases, attempted to help police detectives and a team of investigators by communicating with the spirits of the victims to uncover details of their life and death. The team of investigators followed up the psychics’ leads and apparently came up with information about the killers and whereabouts of victims' remains.[27] Skepticism regarding the series has come from several sources,[28][29][30] and it was further satirized in the season finale, where host Jeremy Wells humorously highlighted the fact that not a single case had been solved.[31]'

Just how relevant is this? Granted, it does provide criticism, yet it is from a television show. We are given no knowledge of the reputation or fame of these mediums, so it is difficult to criticise all based on a few. If high profile mediums were used, I would have been inclined to agree on the inclusion.

Whilst the rest of the criticism section is valid and comes from scientists etc, the validity of a statement by a television presenter is small, and it is difficult to see any real reason for the inclusion other than to bolster the criticism section.

Cheers, Macromonkey (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: removed pending discussion Macromonkey (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

National Science Foundation

Hello, I'd like to discuss this diff. I reverted it, but then found out a similar change was made here, here, here, and here. Should I just undo all of those diffs or is there some reason we're removing references from the National Science Foundation? The information seems credible, noteworthy, and correct so I'm honestly confused. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

These paragraphs are part of a compaign of BullRangifer. After finding the reference, he added it to the leads of about a dozen articles. Initially there was almost a consensus that this was OK at Talk:Ghost. Basically only Ludwigs2 and admin Dbachmann were opposed, and I will explain below why they are right. BullRangifer then started a misleading RfC (whether the NSF is reliable, rather than whether the statement makes any sense in the way it is used, is correct, due weight etc.) and ignored all protests. This gave some editors leverage to get Ludwigs2 blocked for not abiding by a claimed but non-existent consensus.

It was hard to get anything like a real discussion on this misquotation started, given that those who understand the problem are (like me) generally no friends of paranormal, religion or other nonsense and therefore not motivated to do a lot to fix it. I tried to start a centralised discussion at WP:RS/N#Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. There weren't many responses by editors who had not been involved previously. You can find them under WP:RS/N#Discussion. Note in particular the opinion of DGG, a librarian, and that of SlimVirgin. Cenarium is another editor who has been active removing this paragraph from various places.

Here are some of the problems:

• The statement is factually incorrect in so far as it talks about ghosts, haunted houses, reincarnation, witchcraft. These are clearly folk beliefs / religious beliefs, not pseudoscientific beliefs. "Pseudoscience" has two major uses: In a technical sense defined at pseudoscience and wikt:pseudoscience, and as an invective. In the context of an encyclopedia only the first use is appropriate. The use in the source, however, is close to the second, because "pseudoscience" is sloppily applied to fields that do not claim or try to be scientific in any way.
• The statement is assembled from 6 (half-)lines in this 500-page book plus an endnote of 11 (half-)lines. Without assembling it in this way it's easy to miss that it is wrong. (The book cites a Gallup poll on paranormal as if it was about pseudoscience. Close, but not quite the same.)
• The claim is not in the area of expertise of the authors, or in the scope of the book, which is an executive summary on science statistics for politicians. The claim is not supported by any references or argued for in any way. It just appears casually and almost implicitly.
• Similar statements are contained in the two previous editions but not in the following (2008 and 2010) editions. There is reason to believe that this is not an accident: A paragraph on creationism was controversially dropped from the draft of the 2010 edition because of problems similar to those with this passage.

For some of the items on the list (like astrology) we have much better sources than the list, so it shouldn't be used for that reason. For others the claim is dubious as explained above (there is no reason to call nonsense "pseudoscience" if it has no similarity to science, for example). Overall, even though it comes from the NSF (more precisely the NSB), it is dubious.

There are also serious problems with BullRangifer's formulation. It claims that by making the sloppy claim, the NSF did no less than express academic consensus! This is complete bullshit. There can be no such academic consensus, since every single serious definition of pseudoscience, including the one used by the NSB book, includes some variant of "science-like" that is simply being ignored here. Per WP:RS#Academic consensus such a claim cannot be made if it does not appear explicitly in the source. I have told BullRangifer repeatedly, but he simply ignores it. This demonstrates the sloppiness in the use of the source, and I hope it's enough to take my concerns seriously enough to evaluate them carefully.

It's perfectly appropriate to have something in the lead that says mediumship is bullshit. But it needs to be properly sourced, and given the many hours that I had to spend on dealing with BullRangifer's campaign and the number of articles to which he has spammed this (over a dozen) I don't think that I am obliged to find something suitable for each article before removing the passage. Hans Adler 13:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "definitely notable" in your edit summary: The NSF is notable. The statement is not. Nobody has discussed it outside Wikipedia. It is wrong, but we can't say so because nobody has ever written about it in a reliable source. The way it appeared originally (less than 20 lines in a huge book about something entirely else) also clearly does not make it notable. But some kind of notability is required for mentioning incorrect claims. And of course they must never be presented in a way that makes them appear to have more authority than they have. Statisticians writing for the NSF are as capable of getting things wrong as anybody else, especially when they are merely making unstated assumptions about something outside their fields, as in this case. Hans Adler 13:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The source would support something like the language that was once in the article: "The existence of spirits and the ability of people to communicate with them is not supported by scientific consensus." But that's absurdly weak, to the point that it makes mediumship appear more respectable than it is. Therefore it's not as easy as reverting back to the old formulation. It's better to say nothing than such an extreme understatement. Hans Adler 13:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the reply. There's a lot to sift through there! "Did you read the source?" Yes, I read the source. My revert was made in good faith. "It says *nothing* about scientific consensus." Sure it does: "The science community ... have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to pseudoscientific or unproven claims" Seems pretty clear. "The statement is factually incorrect...The NSF is notable. The statement is not." I guess I'd like to disagree on that one. It seems like there are some RFCs, which you hint at above, that agree with me on this specific fact: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. (NSF RFC). In this specific case we're not even going as far as to label Mediumship as pseudoscience: we're just stating that the NSF thinks mediumship is pseudoscience (which it clearly does). I also see National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs." (another NSF RFC). You were even a dissenting "vote" in the second RFC so I'm not sure why you would specifically go against the result of the RFC. That seems weird. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much time before going to bed, so my response may be incomplete:

• "The science community" may well be particularly concerned about people's susceptibility to pseudoscience. (I guess they are talking about the American science community and creationism.) But that has nothing to with the claim that belief in ghosts is a pseudoscientific belief, etc. The source does definitely not claim that that is covered by scientific consensus. But per WP:RS#Academic consensus that's what we would need for such a far-reaching statement.

To make absolutely clear why this is a serious problem with the formulation: Philosophising about pseudoscience was introduced by Karl Popper. It would never have occurred to him to call "ghosts" pseudoscience, because he introduced the term to describe fields like astrology or psychoanalysis which are structurally similar to science but are not science. In this sense ghosts are no more pseudoscience than buttons or cooking. If you were right that according to the NSF there is an academic consensus that ghosts are pseudoscience, then Popper would be opposing the (current) academic consensus. That's nonsense. Everybody who talks about pseudoscience seriously (see demarcation problem, it's a known hard philosophical problem to which the statistical division of the NSF is unlikely to make significant contributions, especially in a casual way) follows Popper (and the etymology of the word) in that it's only about superficially science-like fields. Ghosts and reincarnation needn't apply, ghost hunting may have a chance. I have no idea about mediumship. It's not very popular in my part of the world.

• "The NSF" may well think that mediumship is pseudoscience, but the source does not back this.
• NSF RFC: This RfC was totally confused. Nobody knew whether it was about:

• Whether the NSF is qualified to say ghosts etc. are pseudoscience.
• Whether it actually says it with authority. (In my opinion it doesn't, and DGG for example agrees.)
• Whether a specific footnote that BullRangifer wanted to add to the policy could be added.

The last was BullRangifer's interpretation after the RfC was over, and it took another RfC to make it clear to him there was no majority for this. Hans Adler 22:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

New Initiative: Re-build a separate page for channeling based on more current information

I was very surprised today to search on Wiki and find channeling combined with mediumship. I agree with the comments made in the prior topic discussions and elsewhere, that channeling is not the same as mediumship. For starters, those who do one do not consider themselves the same as the other, books by channelers are not catergorized in bookstores in the same areas with mediumship. Websites which publish channeled authors, do not feature mediums. Sites which features mediums do not list well-known channelers. I would like to develop a new, separate page for channeling. I am new to Wiki as an author, so I may need some help and or time but I am committed to doing this, unless someone has a major problem with my taking the initiative to work on this. Altadenagirl (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3