![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I changed the statement that Chico Xavier was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1981 and 1989, since it cannot be found on his wiki-page and even more the Nobel-Foundation states that it is kept secret for 50 Year who was nominated. (If somebody has a prove we can put it in again) + i love you all, so go out, make a spell, and do the damn seance, who cares if you have to sneak out, its for your own good, just dont get caught!!! get your ass out there and do it man!!
Also I put the 'npov check' on this page, since this article gives the impression that it is really possible (i.e. generally accepted that it is possible) to talk to the dead. Especially the last section. The last sentence 'this has caused some skepticism' seems by far not enough to balance this out. - Andreask 13:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I am a bigger dummy than I thought but would you say 'The Oracle' in Greek mythology was a person going into trance state and then conducting a seance? how about eastern mystics? Tiksustoo 22:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course you are not a dummy :) . I agree, that the Greek Oracle went into a trance state to predict the future. But as far as I remember, 'the Orcale' didn't do so by talking to the dead, which is crucial to call it a seance. To the question about eastern mystics: How far east you wanna go? I remember from the 1950 Japanese Rashomon movie, that they conducted a seance to solve a crime. Maybe we can take this as a hint for seances in japanese culture. Andreask 06:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thanksa again. hmmm Wiki should be inclusidve of east and west.. so take it as far as the sun goes ;o). am busy hitting magic pages in case you didnt notice from my edits. Tiksustoo 13:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that list of 'Seance in the Media' is complete without a reference to the movie 'Beetlejuice'.
The Pythian oracles 'went into a trance'/inhaled noxious fumes and then Apollo 'spoke' through them. In Greek mythology, talking to the dead was done by going to Tartarus and having a face to face (i.e. Odysseus and Teiresias).-- 99.226.246.180 ( talk) 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the description of this; so the plot is less visible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.102.0.32 ( talk) 11:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
It is important, when writing any article that deals with people's religious and spiritual beliefs and practices to not put criticism in the lead paragraph. In particular, the tag "pseudoscience" is being pasted on dozens of spirituality, paranormality, and religion articles in an indecent and tendentious manner. Wikipedia is not "The Atheist's Encyclopedia" or "The Skeptic's Encyclopedia." I have removed skeptical criticisms from the lead paragraph and from descriptive paragraphs and placed them in a section called "Critical objections," which contains objections made by spirit-believers as well as by non-spirit-believers. Courtesy is as essential as accuracy when presenting information to the general public. Imagine if Wikipedia were run by racists. Would you read it? How about if it were run by Fundamentalist Christians. Would you read it? There is a reason we ask for NPOV writing, and for mutual respect among editors, and this article needs more of that NPOV writing and more mutual respect. cat -- Catherineyronwode ( talk) 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Possibly we need more discussion. I would be interested in what others think about several questions. Cardamon ( talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I say yes. Cardamon ( talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I say yes. Cardamon ( talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No-one will be surprised to know that I say yes. Also, I say that a yes answer to both 1) and 2) should imply a yes answer to 3). Cardamon ( talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Theravada Buddhism, also lack belief in a personal god.
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (argument) to be true without necessarily being able to adequately prove their main contention to other people who may or may not agree.
Skeptics generally consider séances to be scams, or at least a form of pious fraud.
I am in fact fairly comfortable with the article as it stands. What did bring my attention to it were constructions like "they are thus as fully inarguable", "this is a matter of religious dogma", and "Skeptics have used historic exposures as a frame through which to view all spirit mediumship as inherently fraudulent"; and citations like this and this, which didn't back up the statements against which they were placed. I felt strongly that the article was being used to rail against scepticism (and Catholicism). These edits are now long gone from the article and I welcome that. I won't respond to the comments about my education and editorial expertise, but will say that you need to take Martinphi's edits up with him, not with the three other editors here; no-one else is responsible for them. I think you have greatly misjudged his agenda, though. — BillC talk 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UT
The BBC article on scientists and seances to which BillC helpfully provided a link here opens up a new topic for a short section: famous / wiki-notable seance attendees. Some information for this list can be found in the BBC article itself, which can be used as a ref; other names can be found in the wiki article on Spiritualism, or elsewhere. Thanks, BillC, for bringing something new and interesting to the article! cat Catherineyronwode ( talk) 09:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:Lead states " and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any". This discussion seems to be lacking in the current lead, as there is some controversy-- Vannin ( talk) 04:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC).
The Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church (see terminology below) is a Christian church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, currently Pope Benedict XVI. It traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus and spread by the Twelve Apostles, in particular Saint Peter.[1][2]
The Catholic Church is the largest Christian church, representing about half of all Christians, and is the largest organized body of any world religion.[3] According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, the Catholic Church's worldwide recorded membership at the end of 2005 was 1,114,966,000, approximately one-sixth of the world's population.[4][5][6]
The worldwide Catholic Church is made up of one Western or Latin and 22 Eastern Catholic autonomous particular churches, all of which look to the Pope, alone or along with the College of Bishops, as their highest authority on earth for matters of faith, morals and church governance.[7] It is divided into jurisdictional areas, usually on a territorial basis. The standard territorial unit, each of which is headed by a bishop, is called a diocese in the Latin church and an eparchy in the Eastern churches. At the end of 2006, the total number of all these jurisdictional areas (or "Sees") was 2,782.[8]
The difference between seances and other belief-oriented topics is that seances seek to actively demonstrate in a visible way a connection with a spirit world. Historically these visible demonstrations have included things like spirit photographs. It's a little different than other, more passive spiritual practices, like prayer or meditation. Here, the practitioners weren't claiming to just talk to the dead, they claimed to be able to demonstrate visible proof of it. These manifestations of spirits (photos, tables tipping, bells ringing, and so on) were what led to the quick and huge popularity of Spiritualism back in the day. Unfortunately the exposure of frauds is what led to the equally impressive quick decline. Spiritualism would have been just as popular today, or more so, if it hadn't been for the widespread exposing of frauds. It's an important part of the story, is different from other belief-related topics because it's not just a belief but also a claim, and needs to be in here at least from a historical perspective. It's not picking on anyone's religious beliefs to include historical events related to the topic. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 08:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
How do folks feel about removing the neutrality tag at the start of the article? I think the article is NPOV and does not deserve the tag. For one thing, the introduction does not evn mention the existence of skepticisim.
Comments?
cat Catherineyronwode ( talk) 11:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Catherineyronwode appears to [ sell] spirit boards and ouija boards through [ her website]. This looks to me to be a conflict of interest in relation to her editing of this article. I would suggest that, if she continues to edits this article, she might consider editing it much more neutrally than she has been, and drop her insistence on whitewashing the introduction. Cardamon ( talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a conflict of interest. Catherine doesn't just have a website, she's a popular occult author and could lend a certain expertise to the subject. If she were selling seance services, editing an article about herself or one of her books, then it would be a COI. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 08:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's the situation, as i see it:
An Arbcom ruling stated that subjects tagged "paranormal" are ipso facto "controversial" and thus can have controversy generated by skeptics mentioned in the lead.
Religions are not tagged "paranormal."
This article Seance has been tagged "paranormal" although it is generally a religious topic.
The Spiritualism, Spiritism, and Espiritismo articles have not been tagged as paranormal, being rightfully deemed religious topics -- but the pinciple activity that distinguishes these religious traditions -- institutionalized contact with the dead -- has been tagged "paranormal," which opens the door for skeptics to push their debunking in the leads of any articles that describe the religious pactices of those who worship in those institutions, under the rule that "paranormal" claims are ipso facto "controversial".
Even nealparr's rather mild attempt to defuse the situation by writing a new lead introduced what i consider to be an inappropriate judgementalism about the religious activities of millions of people worldwide.
The articles on mediumship, and faith healing have had similar problems. At one point, the faith healing article actually included debunking references to psychic surgery, a topic that is not in any way connected to faith healing -- which was seemingly included in order to make faith healing look like a stage illusionist's act.
I asked for the paranormality tag to be taken off the seance article but that idea was nixed by Martinphi. As long as that tag remains, people will feel justified by the Arbcom ruling on paranormality to despoil any religious page they wish, by describing its beliefs (Chrisian resurrection, Taoist immortality) or liturgical activities (contact with the dead, faith healing) as "paranormal" and therefore subject to ridicule as "controversial" and "fraud" in the lead.
I think this issue needs to be revisited in geater depth, and a decision made as to whether Wikipedia wishes to pursue a consistently anti-religious POV by calling ALL religions "paranormal" or NO religions "parnormal" -- because what is happening right now is that the rule is applied inconsistenly: LARGE religions, like Roman Catholic Christianity, are allowed to "get away" with paranormal claims and also with having controversies involving fraud, with no mention of either in the lead, while SMALL religions, like Spiritualism, are tagged as "paranomal" and presented as "controversial" and "fraud" in the lead.
cat Catherineyronwode ( talk) 02:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, it is the claims associated with seances that are criticized, not the belief. The belief that contacting the dead is possible would be treated like any other belief. It's just a belief. You don't see criticism in the animism article, for example, or in the afterlife article. It's when a controversial claim is made, like that faith healing actually heals, that when it's open to criticism.
It doesn't have anything to do with how widespread Spiritualism is either. You don't see criticism in the lead of Christianity not because there's a bunch of Christians out there who can keep it out. It's because they don't claim to have physical proof of life after death like Spiritualists do (at least early ones). Seances were conducted to show tangible proof that there is life after death, and it is because of this that Spiritualism became popular. The exposing of frauds is what made it less popular. It's because the claims were so extraordinary that a great deal of scrutiny befell the early Spiritualists. Unfortunately that scrutiny exposed a lot of fraudulent activity. If the claim wasn't so great, and the fraud wasn't so widespread, seances wouldn't be so notable. That's why it needs to be covered here. It is an essential part of why the (partly) religious practice is so wide known. It's not just famous, it's infamous.
I say "partly" religious practice because it's not just a religious practice. Parker Brothers made talking boards into a game for a reason. Just as notable as the religious aspect, it's also a form of entertainment. Everyone I know has at one time participated in a seance at a party when they were teenagers, and none of them are Spiritualists. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 06:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
So there is this paragraph:
"Mediumship is the term used to describe the reception of messages from spirits of the dead and other spirits. Some mediums are fully conscious and awake while functioning as contacts; others may slip into a partial or full trance or an altered state of consciousness. Trance-mediums often state that, when they emerge from the trance state, they have no recollection of the messages they conveyed; it is customary for such practitioners to work with an assistant who writes down or otherwise records their words."
This first two lines in particular seems POV, as there is considerable debate as to whether or not anyone is receiving messages from the dead, and if there is such a thing as a trance, and if they are functioning as 'contacts'. This just seems like it was written by someone who is involved in the 'community', and lo and behold, the reference is an article written by 'practitioners'.
I would like to change it to this:
"Mediumship is the term used to describe an act where the practitioner attempts to receive messages from spirits of the dead and other spirits that the practitioner believes exist. Some self-ordained mediums say they are fully conscious and awake while functioning as contacts; others say they may slip into a partial or full trance or an altered state of consciousness. These self called 'trance-mediums' often state that, when they emerge from the trance state, they have no recollection of the messages they conveyed; it is customary for such practitioners to work with an assistant who writes down or otherwise records their words. "
I don't just want to change it , as there should be a consensus. One more thing "spirits of the dead and other spirits" what other spirits are there?-- Iclavdivs ( talk) 00:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You should mention obama in this article using the term
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/obama.seance/index.html?iref=topnews#cnnSTCVideo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 ( talk) 06:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the "Dialogues of the Dead" was anything but a literary device he copied from an ancient Greek rhetoritician (and others)? If not, this reference should be removed as irrelevant and confusing. HistorianKris ( talk) 10:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I changed the statement that Chico Xavier was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1981 and 1989, since it cannot be found on his wiki-page and even more the Nobel-Foundation states that it is kept secret for 50 Year who was nominated. (If somebody has a prove we can put it in again) + i love you all, so go out, make a spell, and do the damn seance, who cares if you have to sneak out, its for your own good, just dont get caught!!! get your ass out there and do it man!!
Also I put the 'npov check' on this page, since this article gives the impression that it is really possible (i.e. generally accepted that it is possible) to talk to the dead. Especially the last section. The last sentence 'this has caused some skepticism' seems by far not enough to balance this out. - Andreask 13:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I am a bigger dummy than I thought but would you say 'The Oracle' in Greek mythology was a person going into trance state and then conducting a seance? how about eastern mystics? Tiksustoo 22:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course you are not a dummy :) . I agree, that the Greek Oracle went into a trance state to predict the future. But as far as I remember, 'the Orcale' didn't do so by talking to the dead, which is crucial to call it a seance. To the question about eastern mystics: How far east you wanna go? I remember from the 1950 Japanese Rashomon movie, that they conducted a seance to solve a crime. Maybe we can take this as a hint for seances in japanese culture. Andreask 06:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thanksa again. hmmm Wiki should be inclusidve of east and west.. so take it as far as the sun goes ;o). am busy hitting magic pages in case you didnt notice from my edits. Tiksustoo 13:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that list of 'Seance in the Media' is complete without a reference to the movie 'Beetlejuice'.
The Pythian oracles 'went into a trance'/inhaled noxious fumes and then Apollo 'spoke' through them. In Greek mythology, talking to the dead was done by going to Tartarus and having a face to face (i.e. Odysseus and Teiresias).-- 99.226.246.180 ( talk) 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the description of this; so the plot is less visible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.102.0.32 ( talk) 11:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
It is important, when writing any article that deals with people's religious and spiritual beliefs and practices to not put criticism in the lead paragraph. In particular, the tag "pseudoscience" is being pasted on dozens of spirituality, paranormality, and religion articles in an indecent and tendentious manner. Wikipedia is not "The Atheist's Encyclopedia" or "The Skeptic's Encyclopedia." I have removed skeptical criticisms from the lead paragraph and from descriptive paragraphs and placed them in a section called "Critical objections," which contains objections made by spirit-believers as well as by non-spirit-believers. Courtesy is as essential as accuracy when presenting information to the general public. Imagine if Wikipedia were run by racists. Would you read it? How about if it were run by Fundamentalist Christians. Would you read it? There is a reason we ask for NPOV writing, and for mutual respect among editors, and this article needs more of that NPOV writing and more mutual respect. cat -- Catherineyronwode ( talk) 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Possibly we need more discussion. I would be interested in what others think about several questions. Cardamon ( talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I say yes. Cardamon ( talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I say yes. Cardamon ( talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No-one will be surprised to know that I say yes. Also, I say that a yes answer to both 1) and 2) should imply a yes answer to 3). Cardamon ( talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Theravada Buddhism, also lack belief in a personal god.
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (argument) to be true without necessarily being able to adequately prove their main contention to other people who may or may not agree.
Skeptics generally consider séances to be scams, or at least a form of pious fraud.
I am in fact fairly comfortable with the article as it stands. What did bring my attention to it were constructions like "they are thus as fully inarguable", "this is a matter of religious dogma", and "Skeptics have used historic exposures as a frame through which to view all spirit mediumship as inherently fraudulent"; and citations like this and this, which didn't back up the statements against which they were placed. I felt strongly that the article was being used to rail against scepticism (and Catholicism). These edits are now long gone from the article and I welcome that. I won't respond to the comments about my education and editorial expertise, but will say that you need to take Martinphi's edits up with him, not with the three other editors here; no-one else is responsible for them. I think you have greatly misjudged his agenda, though. — BillC talk 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UT
The BBC article on scientists and seances to which BillC helpfully provided a link here opens up a new topic for a short section: famous / wiki-notable seance attendees. Some information for this list can be found in the BBC article itself, which can be used as a ref; other names can be found in the wiki article on Spiritualism, or elsewhere. Thanks, BillC, for bringing something new and interesting to the article! cat Catherineyronwode ( talk) 09:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:Lead states " and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any". This discussion seems to be lacking in the current lead, as there is some controversy-- Vannin ( talk) 04:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC).
The Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church (see terminology below) is a Christian church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, currently Pope Benedict XVI. It traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus and spread by the Twelve Apostles, in particular Saint Peter.[1][2]
The Catholic Church is the largest Christian church, representing about half of all Christians, and is the largest organized body of any world religion.[3] According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, the Catholic Church's worldwide recorded membership at the end of 2005 was 1,114,966,000, approximately one-sixth of the world's population.[4][5][6]
The worldwide Catholic Church is made up of one Western or Latin and 22 Eastern Catholic autonomous particular churches, all of which look to the Pope, alone or along with the College of Bishops, as their highest authority on earth for matters of faith, morals and church governance.[7] It is divided into jurisdictional areas, usually on a territorial basis. The standard territorial unit, each of which is headed by a bishop, is called a diocese in the Latin church and an eparchy in the Eastern churches. At the end of 2006, the total number of all these jurisdictional areas (or "Sees") was 2,782.[8]
The difference between seances and other belief-oriented topics is that seances seek to actively demonstrate in a visible way a connection with a spirit world. Historically these visible demonstrations have included things like spirit photographs. It's a little different than other, more passive spiritual practices, like prayer or meditation. Here, the practitioners weren't claiming to just talk to the dead, they claimed to be able to demonstrate visible proof of it. These manifestations of spirits (photos, tables tipping, bells ringing, and so on) were what led to the quick and huge popularity of Spiritualism back in the day. Unfortunately the exposure of frauds is what led to the equally impressive quick decline. Spiritualism would have been just as popular today, or more so, if it hadn't been for the widespread exposing of frauds. It's an important part of the story, is different from other belief-related topics because it's not just a belief but also a claim, and needs to be in here at least from a historical perspective. It's not picking on anyone's religious beliefs to include historical events related to the topic. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 08:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
How do folks feel about removing the neutrality tag at the start of the article? I think the article is NPOV and does not deserve the tag. For one thing, the introduction does not evn mention the existence of skepticisim.
Comments?
cat Catherineyronwode ( talk) 11:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Catherineyronwode appears to [ sell] spirit boards and ouija boards through [ her website]. This looks to me to be a conflict of interest in relation to her editing of this article. I would suggest that, if she continues to edits this article, she might consider editing it much more neutrally than she has been, and drop her insistence on whitewashing the introduction. Cardamon ( talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a conflict of interest. Catherine doesn't just have a website, she's a popular occult author and could lend a certain expertise to the subject. If she were selling seance services, editing an article about herself or one of her books, then it would be a COI. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 08:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's the situation, as i see it:
An Arbcom ruling stated that subjects tagged "paranormal" are ipso facto "controversial" and thus can have controversy generated by skeptics mentioned in the lead.
Religions are not tagged "paranormal."
This article Seance has been tagged "paranormal" although it is generally a religious topic.
The Spiritualism, Spiritism, and Espiritismo articles have not been tagged as paranormal, being rightfully deemed religious topics -- but the pinciple activity that distinguishes these religious traditions -- institutionalized contact with the dead -- has been tagged "paranormal," which opens the door for skeptics to push their debunking in the leads of any articles that describe the religious pactices of those who worship in those institutions, under the rule that "paranormal" claims are ipso facto "controversial".
Even nealparr's rather mild attempt to defuse the situation by writing a new lead introduced what i consider to be an inappropriate judgementalism about the religious activities of millions of people worldwide.
The articles on mediumship, and faith healing have had similar problems. At one point, the faith healing article actually included debunking references to psychic surgery, a topic that is not in any way connected to faith healing -- which was seemingly included in order to make faith healing look like a stage illusionist's act.
I asked for the paranormality tag to be taken off the seance article but that idea was nixed by Martinphi. As long as that tag remains, people will feel justified by the Arbcom ruling on paranormality to despoil any religious page they wish, by describing its beliefs (Chrisian resurrection, Taoist immortality) or liturgical activities (contact with the dead, faith healing) as "paranormal" and therefore subject to ridicule as "controversial" and "fraud" in the lead.
I think this issue needs to be revisited in geater depth, and a decision made as to whether Wikipedia wishes to pursue a consistently anti-religious POV by calling ALL religions "paranormal" or NO religions "parnormal" -- because what is happening right now is that the rule is applied inconsistenly: LARGE religions, like Roman Catholic Christianity, are allowed to "get away" with paranormal claims and also with having controversies involving fraud, with no mention of either in the lead, while SMALL religions, like Spiritualism, are tagged as "paranomal" and presented as "controversial" and "fraud" in the lead.
cat Catherineyronwode ( talk) 02:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, it is the claims associated with seances that are criticized, not the belief. The belief that contacting the dead is possible would be treated like any other belief. It's just a belief. You don't see criticism in the animism article, for example, or in the afterlife article. It's when a controversial claim is made, like that faith healing actually heals, that when it's open to criticism.
It doesn't have anything to do with how widespread Spiritualism is either. You don't see criticism in the lead of Christianity not because there's a bunch of Christians out there who can keep it out. It's because they don't claim to have physical proof of life after death like Spiritualists do (at least early ones). Seances were conducted to show tangible proof that there is life after death, and it is because of this that Spiritualism became popular. The exposing of frauds is what made it less popular. It's because the claims were so extraordinary that a great deal of scrutiny befell the early Spiritualists. Unfortunately that scrutiny exposed a lot of fraudulent activity. If the claim wasn't so great, and the fraud wasn't so widespread, seances wouldn't be so notable. That's why it needs to be covered here. It is an essential part of why the (partly) religious practice is so wide known. It's not just famous, it's infamous.
I say "partly" religious practice because it's not just a religious practice. Parker Brothers made talking boards into a game for a reason. Just as notable as the religious aspect, it's also a form of entertainment. Everyone I know has at one time participated in a seance at a party when they were teenagers, and none of them are Spiritualists. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 06:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
So there is this paragraph:
"Mediumship is the term used to describe the reception of messages from spirits of the dead and other spirits. Some mediums are fully conscious and awake while functioning as contacts; others may slip into a partial or full trance or an altered state of consciousness. Trance-mediums often state that, when they emerge from the trance state, they have no recollection of the messages they conveyed; it is customary for such practitioners to work with an assistant who writes down or otherwise records their words."
This first two lines in particular seems POV, as there is considerable debate as to whether or not anyone is receiving messages from the dead, and if there is such a thing as a trance, and if they are functioning as 'contacts'. This just seems like it was written by someone who is involved in the 'community', and lo and behold, the reference is an article written by 'practitioners'.
I would like to change it to this:
"Mediumship is the term used to describe an act where the practitioner attempts to receive messages from spirits of the dead and other spirits that the practitioner believes exist. Some self-ordained mediums say they are fully conscious and awake while functioning as contacts; others say they may slip into a partial or full trance or an altered state of consciousness. These self called 'trance-mediums' often state that, when they emerge from the trance state, they have no recollection of the messages they conveyed; it is customary for such practitioners to work with an assistant who writes down or otherwise records their words. "
I don't just want to change it , as there should be a consensus. One more thing "spirits of the dead and other spirits" what other spirits are there?-- Iclavdivs ( talk) 00:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You should mention obama in this article using the term
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/obama.seance/index.html?iref=topnews#cnnSTCVideo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 ( talk) 06:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the "Dialogues of the Dead" was anything but a literary device he copied from an ancient Greek rhetoritician (and others)? If not, this reference should be removed as irrelevant and confusing. HistorianKris ( talk) 10:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)