Talk:Mediumship

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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Parapsychology
 This article is supported by WikiProject Parapsychology, which collaborates on parapsychology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive

Archives
1: May 2006 - Feb 2007
2: March 2007 - April 2007

Contents


[edit] 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. Martinphi (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. Martinphi (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? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, the term is not just used in spiritualism. Martinphi (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. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Martinphi (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. Martinphi (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. Martinphi (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. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? –––Martinphi (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. –––Martinphi (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. –––Martinphi (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. –––Martinphi (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. –––Martinphi (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. –––Martinphi (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? –––Martinphi (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? –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. –––Martinphi (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. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Further, if we delete the entire list, somebody is going to be mad. –––Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (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. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Renaming to List of channelled texts, and merging the rest here. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. ——Martinphi ☎ 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. ——Martinphi ☎ 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. ——Martinphi ☎ 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)

[edit] 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.[1] Schwartz and Hyman debated these points in the March 2003 issue of the Skeptical Enquirer.[2][3] 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.[4]


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? ——Martinphi ☎ 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)