 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I have removed the sentence below for the following reasons:
- This is primarily a theoretical article, which cites first-hand, empirical accounts only for the purpose of illustrating the different possible theories of apparitional experience.
- It is not appropriate for an above-the-title summary of the article. Ranger2006
In 1801, while serving as the Collector of Bellary, Thomas Munro is believed to have come across an apparition of Raghavendra Swami.[1][2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger2006 ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the cleanup tag as this was not justified on the talk page. The article is perfectly scientific in approach and tone, and certainly more so than the other articles on this topic which existed before it, e.g. "ghosts".
(FWadel 6Sep06)
I have reverted the last two anonymous edits as I feel the meaning of the sentence commented on was perfectly clear. The question of the nature of reality is a philosophical not a scientific one, and any fundamental discussion of this question belongs in a philosophy article, not a psychology one. Ranger2006 11April07
I have reinstated the ‘Psychology’ category as it seems to me there is more in this article about psychology than there is about parapsychology. Ranger2006 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This article should be under "psychology" and not under "Project Paranormal" or "parapsychology". See the Wiki definition of "parapsychology", "paranormal" etc. An apparitional experience is an hallucination and not in itself "anomalous". Some people may regard them as associated with life after death, ESP, etc., but that is a different matter. One doesn't say the study of dreams is "parapsychology" just because some people claim to see their dead relatives or get premonitions. People who are either pro-parapsychology or anti-parapsychology should stay away from pages such as this one, they only confuse the issue. FWadel 15:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- It should be under both, as both have something to do with it. Same with the categories. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reinstated the ‘Psychology’ category, as this article has more to do with psychology and philosophy than parapsychology. The 'Psychology' category is therefore primary, rather than redundant. Ranger2006 ( talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a substantial and fully-referenced article, and should not be blanked without discussion here, IMO.
The argument that it is putting forward a specific point of view does not stand up. The only incontrovertible facts in this area are the verbal reports of individuals concerning their personal experiences. The ghost concept is only one possible explanation of these reports. It would therefore be more accurate to say that the Ghost article is a subsidiary topic. Ranger2006 ( talk) 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The concept of a ‘sighting’ cannot logically be applied to a ‘vision’, ‘daydream’ or ‘hallucination’. (E.g. one cannot talk of 'sighting a hallucination'.) Also to talk of ‘sighting a ghost’ is question-begging in this context, since one of the points of the article is to make clear that there are competing explanations of the ‘seeing of ghosts’.
To assert that a non-sane person cannot have an apparitional experience is also question-begging. Such a person might logically have a one-off experience of the kind characterised in the article without being prone to hallucinations of a prima facie pathological origin. Ranger2006 ( talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal to merge this article with the one on ‘Hallucinations in the sane’. The latter is a generic concept, whereas ‘apparitional experience’ is an empirical one, describing a distinct class of experience. Ranger2006 ( talk) 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
OPPOSE also since the class of experience in this article is in many ways distinctive and capable of lengthy exposition. Remove tags and ensure linking instead. Redheylin ( talk) 19:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
OPPOSE as apparitional experiences are reported to happen for multiple people at the same time, while hallucinations are associated with individuals. 71.173.71.164 ( talk) 05:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- C-Class paranormal articles
- Mid-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I have removed the sentence below for the following reasons:
- This is primarily a theoretical article, which cites first-hand, empirical accounts only for the purpose of illustrating the different possible theories of apparitional experience.
- It is not appropriate for an above-the-title summary of the article. Ranger2006
In 1801, while serving as the Collector of Bellary, Thomas Munro is believed to have come across an apparition of Raghavendra Swami.[1][2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger2006 ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the cleanup tag as this was not justified on the talk page. The article is perfectly scientific in approach and tone, and certainly more so than the other articles on this topic which existed before it, e.g. "ghosts".
(FWadel 6Sep06)
I have reverted the last two anonymous edits as I feel the meaning of the sentence commented on was perfectly clear. The question of the nature of reality is a philosophical not a scientific one, and any fundamental discussion of this question belongs in a philosophy article, not a psychology one. Ranger2006 11April07
I have reinstated the ‘Psychology’ category as it seems to me there is more in this article about psychology than there is about parapsychology. Ranger2006 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This article should be under "psychology" and not under "Project Paranormal" or "parapsychology". See the Wiki definition of "parapsychology", "paranormal" etc. An apparitional experience is an hallucination and not in itself "anomalous". Some people may regard them as associated with life after death, ESP, etc., but that is a different matter. One doesn't say the study of dreams is "parapsychology" just because some people claim to see their dead relatives or get premonitions. People who are either pro-parapsychology or anti-parapsychology should stay away from pages such as this one, they only confuse the issue. FWadel 15:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- It should be under both, as both have something to do with it. Same with the categories. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reinstated the ‘Psychology’ category, as this article has more to do with psychology and philosophy than parapsychology. The 'Psychology' category is therefore primary, rather than redundant. Ranger2006 ( talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a substantial and fully-referenced article, and should not be blanked without discussion here, IMO.
The argument that it is putting forward a specific point of view does not stand up. The only incontrovertible facts in this area are the verbal reports of individuals concerning their personal experiences. The ghost concept is only one possible explanation of these reports. It would therefore be more accurate to say that the Ghost article is a subsidiary topic. Ranger2006 ( talk) 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The concept of a ‘sighting’ cannot logically be applied to a ‘vision’, ‘daydream’ or ‘hallucination’. (E.g. one cannot talk of 'sighting a hallucination'.) Also to talk of ‘sighting a ghost’ is question-begging in this context, since one of the points of the article is to make clear that there are competing explanations of the ‘seeing of ghosts’.
To assert that a non-sane person cannot have an apparitional experience is also question-begging. Such a person might logically have a one-off experience of the kind characterised in the article without being prone to hallucinations of a prima facie pathological origin. Ranger2006 ( talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal to merge this article with the one on ‘Hallucinations in the sane’. The latter is a generic concept, whereas ‘apparitional experience’ is an empirical one, describing a distinct class of experience. Ranger2006 ( talk) 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
OPPOSE also since the class of experience in this article is in many ways distinctive and capable of lengthy exposition. Remove tags and ensure linking instead. Redheylin ( talk) 19:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
OPPOSE as apparitional experiences are reported to happen for multiple people at the same time, while hallucinations are associated with individuals. 71.173.71.164 ( talk) 05:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- C-Class paranormal articles
- Mid-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles