Talk:Medium (spirituality)

message: Can anyone explain the NPOV tag anon placed in the article?  I'll remove it until then. - Dreadlocke 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: I have removed the anecdote about the Montel Williams show since it takes up far too much space in an article of this size and contains a completely non-neutral description of the events (e.g., "embarrassingly wrong") intended to support a negative interpretation of psychics. If this kind of one-off account is allowed then we could cite hundreds of cases where "such-and-such a psychic on such-and-such a TV show gave an "extraordinarily in-depth" reading including the fact the my uncle henry had a wooden leg or some such thing. Davkal 11:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed "embarrassingly" and reverted section. Thanks Davkal for helping to improve this. Askolnick 12:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: anecdote

message: I removed the bit about the JREF challenge being set up so that it cannot be passed. If you have a source that proves this to be to case, please name it here. My addition was factual. The response seems to be opinion. Stevepaget 15:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JREF Challenge

message: I made a few changes which I believe to be NPOV, though I fully expect my changes to be modified.  If you believe in these psychic abilities, please keep in mind that any claims should be listed as "claims" unless verifiable by a respectable main-stream source. Zeke pbuh 05:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect, see WP:WTA. Dreadlocke  ☥  17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This article, as it stands, says virtually nothing. I think a number of sections should be added. 1. History of mediumship. 2. Famous cases 3. Links to other cultures and traditions (such as shamanism) 4. Scientific reaearch. 
Additionally, next to nothing is sourced at the moment. For example, the skeptical section simply lists a number of objections and makes a number of claims without any indication where those claims come from. Davkal 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree.  Seems like most "paranormal" articles are that way - possibly to to the interaction between the "skeptics" and the "believers" on Wikipedia, everything gets whittled down to nothing - oh wait, I think we've had this discussion before, Mr. Davkal!  Good to see you again, I've been worn down by skeptics on the John Edward article lately...  :)  Dreadlocke  ☥  19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: At no point does it claim that all mediums are fakes?  I think it does, after all the very first sentence under "Skeptical Perspective" clearly says that all mediums are fakes or self-deluded, "Skeptics dispute the existence of genuine mediums, arguing that individuals who claim to possess this ability are either self-deluded or charlatans who engage in cold or hot reading."  Can't get any clearer than that! Dreadlocke  ☥  17:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole dispute over using "believed to be" is an example of what we're talking about, that the skeptics whittle down paranormal articles.  It's a clear fact that many people (a majority, according to several polls) believe there are mediums - that's a fact!  But a skeptic will say that it makes it look like everyone believes them to be, thus countering what is essentially a fact.  Maybe that's not the best example, but it's handy...:)  Skeptics tend to discount anything that doesn't meet scientific methodology, but this isn't a scientific article in a scientific journal.  All viewpoints must be respected and properly presented to meet NPOV.  Never do I see the "believers" side properly presented.   Dreadlocke  ☥  18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article

message: I think this page should be under parapsychology, not spirituality.  I suggest renaming it to "Medium (parapsychology)".  It is spirituality for many people, but mediumism is not always spirituality.  It is, however, always paranormal or psychic, which puts it unambiguously under the purview of parapsychology.  Parapsychology has its first roots in investigating spiritualism. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, but I think it should remain under the current name.  Mainly because it's shorter, and also pretty descriptive - after all, we're really dealing with spirits here!  Can't get more "spiritual" than that! (Well, that is if you believe that sort of thing, natch :)  Dreadlocke  ☥  03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since medium is a term that comes from spiritualism, I'd say keep it the way it is. Changing it to parapsychology limits the scope to only parapsychological research. I'd like to see a history section here eventually that covers some of the more famous mediums from the past. I was writing something about Edgar Cayce today, so he comes to mind. Cayce would have little to do with parapsychology.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: "How does the Wikipedia Medium talk community agree on a high-value, WP:NPOV article and subsequent community edits."
I'm new to posting on Wikipedia. I appreciate your patience while I come up to speed on contributing and discussing with other users on what makes an article offer the most value to the reader while remaining true to Wikipedia content criteria.
I recently been researching the so-called Medium phenomena and as any fact seeking writer must do, I'm researching both sides of the argument. I found many websites with interesting information that show research and support for both pro and con arguments. However, the current Wikipedia article instantly convinced me of the con argument(skeptic side) because it does a better job at representing the con research and arguments than it does the pro research and arguments. To present a factual, unbiased WP:NPOV, a balanced fact-based article should replace the current one - see the example below [removed]. What are your thoughts? -Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasf (talk • contribs) 18:14, January 16, 2007 UTC)
:Please delete all this uneccessary text.--- LuckyLouie 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone now. =) — Elembis 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Sorry for yelling. : ) --- LuckyLouie 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, try not to bite the newbies... :)  Dreadlocke  ☥  04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the bite - I earned it. And thanks to Dreadlocke for the guidance Chasf 08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie Question: