Talk:List of channelled texts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

Okay, let's get this article cleaned up. I've added some citations needed tags. If someone doesn't provide citations in one week, then I'm not sure if those 'hypotheses' have a place in this article.

I'm not very happy with the following paragraph:

"Because of its subjective nature, channelling may be not easy to verify and is an inherently difficult phenomenon to research. The problems faced are similar to those faced by philosophers and theologians who are trying to understand mysticism and the mystical experience. Channeling, like mysticism, is a phenomenon that has been a part of human experience as far back as human records go."

I strongly disagree with the statements in the paragraph and would like to replace it with something with a more skeptical slant. The first sentence, for example, I would argue is wrong, because I think that channelling is not hard to test at all, assuming the channelled entity is willing to cooperate. Someone who professes to channel something with above human intelligence, should then be able to show that his intelligence is above human, or clearly display knowledge that should be unknown to the channeller.

So, if you have an opinion, please share it, else I will delete that paragraph and replace it. MaxMangel 03:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, cleaned up the article and I think it looks much better. If you want to return some of the stuff I've cut, make sure you provide citation, please. MaxMangel 13:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article moving

I intend to move this article to channeling (religion) and make this article into a disambugation page. The reason is that there is also a term channeling (physics) (see German Wikipedia de:channeling). Please raise objections in one week. Andries 15:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Please name it channeling (mediumistic), rather than religion. --sparkit (talk) 16:04, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Why the name mediumistic? Channeling has happened in religions too that do not use the term "medium", such as Islam. Andries 20:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I understand that channeling happens in cultures that perhaps don't use the concept of medium. Yet, much contemporary channeling is not religious in nature. For instance, Seth/Jane Roberts work is much more psychological and science theory oriented, than religious. When I suggested the above I wanted something that encompasses more than what is considered religion, and now I want to change my suggestion to channeling (inspired), which I think covers a broader area than either religion or mediumistic. --sparkit (talk) 21:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
What about channeling (spiritual)? This would be neutral in respect to cultures and encompass psychology, religion, etc. Ben please vote! 04:43, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The POV of this article needs to be balanced so much so that I imagine the whole thing must be rewritten. --Maprovonsha172 13:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; there's bizarre things going on with channel(l)[ing/er] (whatever) in Wikipedia. Is "mediumistic" used in any other articles? Google doesn't seem to think so, and medium (spirituality) uses the other word suggested, so we could probably go there with that, and include both the physics, streambed, and Wheel of Time definitions on the disambiguation page.
Alternatively, we can make channeling the main page (for the spiritual definition), and channeling (disambiguation) for the other terms, but I think that's presumptive. channel, as opposed to channeling, has much more ambiguous definitions. nae'blis (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Earth Changes delete

Hey, would you people care to give your opinion about Earth changes? The article is about to be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_changes Subramanian talk

[edit] Some removals, clean up, and additions that I made

Most of the information that I removed and added is based on an article in Dutch by the religious scholar Wouter J. Hanegraaff. He has also written quite a lot in English about the subject but I only have his article in Dutch. (Non-English references are better than no references at all.)

  1. removed category peudoscience because channelers do not claim to be scientific
  2. added information start of channeling with Jane Roberts and only for New Age according to Wouter J. Hanegraaff.
  3. removed detailed description about a certain quite obscure channeled text (Fletcher)
  4. Removed Koran in corespondence with point 2
  5. Removed reference to spiritism and Kardec, because, according to Hanegraaff, these are different movements with different characteristics, see the article

Andries 19:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your removals, particularly of reference to spiritism and Kardec. Hanegraaff can be one POV among others, but is no reason to removal significant relationships regadless of his feelings. Sam Spade 02:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many exposed as hoaxes, please provide references within one week

The articles has the category: hoaxes and states that many channelers have been exposed as hoaxes. Can somebody please provide references please within one week? After that I will remove the hoaxes category and statement. Note that some mediums are without a doubt delusional but they may be sincere, i.e. no hoaxes. 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)~

I also want to remove the NPOV warning unless somebody raises objections. Feel free to write something about the skeptical point of view. Andries 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I say the warning needs to stay, and I intend on merging your changes w the previous version, restoring lost content, and generally rephrasing. People who areeither for or against have obviously been giving this article a bit of a kicking. I intend to restore balance, in time. Sam Spade 02:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
okay, I have some understanding for your edits with the exception of the page move and the view that the difference between channeling and spiritism is just one view (by Hanegraaff and I believe Melton). Andries

[edit] Page move

I merged and redirected to Spiritual possession. Please make further comments @ Talk:Spiritual possession. Sam Spade 17:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like the page, we need to discuss it. If nothing else I redirected more pages to Spiritual possession than you redirected back here, as you can see @ Special:Contributions/Sam_Spade, and they would need to be directed here.
I don't see the point of this article, by this title. All of the content is now merged into Spiritual_possession, I made sure not to lose things when I redirected.
This articles title is not what someone is likely to type in when looking for an article. We need to think of the reader when determining article titles, to ensure they find what they are looking for in the search bar. Sam Spade 23:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade wrote, "This articles title is not what someone is likely to type in when looking for an article."
Sam, I do not understand this objection. The term channeling is well known and I know the term much better than spiritual possession. The latter is a very different subject. Channeling is, I believe, in most case delusional and a product of the medium's own mind, in contrast to spiritual possession that accepts ghosts and entities as a reality. Andries 23:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by PMMoon are partially flawed and factually incorrect

Though PMMoon made significant changes (incl. improvements) to the article, s/he also made some flawed edits and unjustified removal e.g.

  • factually incorrect : "physically embodied human being" channeling can also come from angels and God
  • unjustified removals :attributed notable opinion by Wouter Hanegraaff about the difference between spiritism and channeling. He is an international expert in the field, though I had not had time to translate his Dutch language article about the subject as required by Wikipedia:verifiability (It bothers me that in Wikipedia people feel free to remove these without explanation)

I will try to give a partial revert to keep his/her good edits and if this takes too much time in sorting the good from the bad edits, then I will give a complete revert. Andries 11:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Channeling or Channelling

Is channelling not spelt with two L's? --nirvana2013 18:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, it spelled with double L according to my spell checker and dictionary. I do not understand why I and others did not notice this earlier. I consider it quite a blunder. Andries 19:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I propose an immediate move to channelling (mediumistic) to solve this embarrassing blunder. Andries 19:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Great that's what I thought. Channel is one L, channelling is two. The category "channeling" still shows one L though. --nirvana2013 22:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's an AE vs. BE issue, so it should probably have been left alone per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English (default to first contributor's usage), since it's not a country-specific topic. 24.17.48.241 06:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, channelling is British English and channeling is American English. Looks like the two countries are on different wavelengths, or channels. --nirvana2013 11:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What clean up is needed?

There is a tag to clean up but no specific issues. What are the issues that someone percieved needs to be cleaned up? 1-22-06

See: [1] ~ This user has left wikipedia 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the cleanup page and can see no text referring to this article on or around the date the tag was added. MaxMangel 05:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Trance Chanelling?

I'm thinking that article could be merged into this one, as it seems to be pretty much out in the middle of nowhere as it is, with only two pages linking to it. It also needs attention for tone (and probably verification, but I don't know the field enough to know what's a reliable source and what's some delusional ranting). I've never done a merge before, though, so I don't really know the proper procedure for it yet. Errick 03:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tags

Is there an active discussion on the merge proposal for Medium (spirituality) and Channelling (mediumistic)? If not 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 ☥ 16:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope I've added this correctly as I am a new poster. A TRANCE MEDIUM is not a CHANNELER. Please check the official Spiritualist website at http://www.snu.org.uk There is no mention of CHANNELING. Chanelling is a new American buzzword for a sort of unsubstantiated spirit contact i.e. it cannot be proved. Trance Mediumship endeavours to give proof of the communicator.

[edit] First sentence

Here's the first sentence:

Channelling' or channeling is the communication of information to or through a person (the channel or medium), from a spirit or other supernatural entity outside the mind (or self) of the channel.

Shouldn't we change that to something slightly more skeptical? Like "the alleged communication"? Personally, I do think there are a few legitimate "channellers" that are communicating with the paranormal, but since no scientific verification has taken place and so many "channellers" are hoaxers, we probably ought to replace it with the following to keep it NPOV:

Channelling' or channeling is the alleged communication of information to or through a person (the channel or medium), from a spirit or other supernatural entity outside the mind (or self) of the channel.

Wadaya think? standonbibleTalk! 14:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged" is a weasel word though, and should be backed up by a source. Otherwise it becomes a "denying it without denying it" sort of thing, which should in general be avoided. It works better, at least in my opinion, to have a criticisms section, or more specific sources, pointing out who it is that alleges that it is or is not a genuine phenomenon. Errick 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, when used in this context "alleged" is not a weasel word because it is not being used instead of a valid source. My proposed first sentence states not that channelling is "alleged" by somebody (which would need a valid citation) but that channelling is "alleged communication". "Alleged" is not a verb in this context, it is an adjective and it is not a weasel word.
We need to have this because otherwise we are stated (basically) that channelling is a reoccurent, observable phenomenon. This is misleading and by including "alleged" it makes the article deal with all channelling, alleged and real, not just real. standonbibleTalk! 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying we shouldn't state the questionable state of channelling, but I am saying that just sticking "Alleged" in there isn't the right way to do it. In fact I've had issues with this entire article as to that aspect, so I do agree with you there. But I don't think I have the writing skills to give this article the kind of rewrite it needs to be accurate and still npov. Errick 03:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs clean up and more accurate referencing

This article is insufficiently referenced. Probably as a consequence, it diverges quite a lot in contents from the Dutch version that I meticulously sourced to a Dutch article by the religious scholar Wouter J. Hanegraaff. For example, the Dutch article makes a distinction between spiritism and new Age channelling but this is completely missing here. I would rather not use this dutch langueage article as a source here though this is formally allowed. If I remember it well Hanegraaff has also published in English in a reputable source about this subject, but I do not have access to it. Andries 15:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Channelling vs Mediumship

From what I have been reading on the internet, channeling and being a medium are two different things, at least in recent United States history. I realize english speaking people outside the USA read this version of Wikipedia, but I'm not certain how to bridge the gap - unless non-USA channeling is redirected to Medium (spirituality), while this article defines channeling as it is in the USA. Suggestions? Perhaps the American spelling of the word (channeling) instead of the English version (channelling)? Dreadlocke ☥ 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requirements for "notable" Books and Channelled Texts

This section appears to be a massive pile of spamming by various users. It seems like it needs a minimum requirement for notability here. Seems like the simplest way would be to require that The book and/or author have their own wikipedia entry. That way the individual entry has to meet notability requirements rather than this page. Thoughts? In the mean time, I'm going to remove some of the more obvious and egregious spamming. Improbcat 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. An article in Wikipedia is not necessarily a factor for entries on disambiguation pages and many other lists. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 06:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but this is specifically a list of "notable" books. Therefore some degree of notability is needed. Requiring it to have it's own page seems like the simplest way to ensure some degree of notability. Improbcat 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree. If dab page links don't need existing articles, nothing does. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
But a dab page isn't asserting the notability of the items, just that they exist and have the same or similar names. This is specifically supposed to be a list of "notable" books.
I am primarily putting this forth because this page has clearly become a dumping ground for people to spam their particular book, whether anyone else has actually heard of it or not. If nothing is done to establish a basic standard of what is a "notable" book, then the entire concept of a "notable" book is null. Wikipedia has standards for notability, why shouldn't a list of "notable" books be held to those standards? Improbcat 15:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Notability is relative--especially when it comes to channelling, which isn't considered "mainstream" (which is the basis of Wikipedia's notability guidelines). What makes a channelled text notable--if it's referred to by other channellers/new agists--how many times and in what mediums (books, magazines, radio, television, movies, etc)? Does it have to exist for at least x years? It's ridiculous, really, and futile trying to "prove" notability--it's not objective despite Wikipedia's delusions of grandeur guideline. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed merge tag

What appears to be an uninformed proposal to merge this page into Mediumship was not defended, and no one has made any arguments for the merge. Almost a year ago someone proposed removing the tag, but this was never done. I have just removed the tag. -Exucmember 02:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to click the discussion link which appears on the merge tag. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the merge should take place. Pls don't remove tag until discussion finalised. Mccready 13:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hanegraaff addition

As for Hanegraaff's work on channeling, apart from that Dutch article, see his New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (Leiden 1996/Albany 1998), esp. chapter 1. Some other important titles are missing from the biblio & from the discussion, so I'll add them.

[edit] Book links

This list of books seems screwed up. There does not seem to be a rationale why each should have its own link to a page.

I have made one according to standard form, if anyone has the time and inclination to tidy the section up, please do. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that mediumship is the same as channeling. The difference is that the former does not convey a complete belief system. so I oppose the merge. I have a reputable source for that. Andries (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)