Talk:Xenoglossy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. 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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.
|
||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.
This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
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. |
[edit] POV Edits
The reason for my original edit of this article was because of the wording, which implied that reincarnation and xenoglossy were a reality. This is POV. What's more, there isn't necessarily a relationship between xenoglossy and reincarnation. It's fine to leave this in the article for some kind of correlation, but only under a neutral tone. Please discuss this issue here before making any reversions. Grendel 02:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Glossolalia
I'm quite happy with the article except for the last sentence.
From what I've read, Xenoglossy and Glossolalia are two different things, having two quite different dictionary meanings. Certainly glossolalia is not what Stevenson and Thomason are talking about.
If a citation can be found to support what is being said in the last sentence, then fine. Otherwise I would suggest that the sentence is removed and the term "glossolalia" listed in the "See also" section. Johnfos 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Googling xenoglossy pulls up a number of sites that seem to use it to mean glossolalia, and (worse) sites that use it to refer to both, without drawing any distinction between the two.
- Nonetheless, there was indeed a problem with the last sentence: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is not about the term xenoglossy, but rather about one concept that is principally identified by that term.
- I've fixed it now.
[edit] Recent edits
As I pointed out in the edit note, the Almeder quote adds nothing as it is merely a statement of opinion. The reference to a later paper of Stevenson (a) repeats the UNDISPUTED point that the speaker actually did speak Bengali and merely repeats Stevenson's view that he has refuted Thomason's critique, without reporting the evidence and argumentation. These are not useful additions to the article.
The more detailed description of the content of the news reports of the Czech speedway racer are based directly on the news reports. They are therefore not unsourced.Bill (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to the Talk page. I will certainly take another look at things. But two questions first: Why have you added Category:Pseudoscience to the article when Category:Reincarnation research (already included) is a sub-category of Category:Pseudoscience? Secondly, why have you have added the statement "The existence of xenoglossy is not generally accepted by linguists and psychologists", but have provided no inline citation to support the claim? Johnfos (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Several days have passed, and I guess there is no more discussion at this time, so I will go ahead and make some changes. Johnfos (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
