Talk:Mediumship/Archive 1

message: I'm researching the subject of this article.  Dreadlocke 06:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article creation

message: Neither JREF nor Zammit's "million dollar challenges" are significant enough to warrant their own section. Dreadlocke  ☥  05:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenges to mediumship

message: This article and Medium (spirituality) address precisely the same topic (as far as I can tell), and that's a "good reason" to merge according to Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Merging the latter page to this one will mean that we won't need to use either "spirituality" or "parapsychology" to disambiguate the page, leaving categorization to the article itself. — Elembis (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merge, but it will have to be under some category, since "medium" has other meanings.  I suggest "parapsychology," because it does not limit the scope, (can have a section or sub-article on "Modern mediumism") but it does put it under a scientific field, so the viewpoint can be limited somewhat within NPOV rules. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no major objections to merging Medium (spirituality)  into Mediumship, other than it seems Mediumship covers a broader and more historical perspective than does Medium - which seems to focus on individual mediums and current information and studies.  This article was originally created with material that was objected to in the Medium article - I rescued it and improved it.  Now here we are, big flamola discussions about content, NPOV and merging Medium into Mediumship...it's an interesting circle that both amuses and amazes me.  Dreadlocke  ☥  19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. For us skeptics, that also leaves a lot of room for scientific investigations into mediumship, which would be terribly damning.  But for us true believers, it leaves room to mention such things as the cross-correspondences, and many peer-reviewed articles in the JOP.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Medium" has other meanings, but I don't think "mediumship" does (see "mediumship" on Google). That means the resulting article can be titled "Mediumship" without "(spirituality)" or "(parapsychology)" appended to it, so any categorization controversies will involve the article's content but not its title. That's the idea, anyway. — Elembis (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's excellent information, Elembis!  Sounds like another good reason to merge! Dreadlocke  ☥  22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I agree with just merging Channelling into Medium into Mediumship.  The more I read, the more of a distinct difference I'm seeing between a Medium and a Channel - at least in recent US history.  It might be better if we created a Channeling (new age) article that describes the recent utilization of "Channel" in the United States.  Then again, because they're so closely intermixed, perhaps a "channel" section in the Mediumship article would do fine.  Thoughts? Dreadlocke  ☥  21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way.  You could just describe the difference in a "Mediumship" article.  That would be highly useful context for readers.  Good idea to have it under "Mediumship."  But whatever the case, I don't want an article where every other word is "supposed," or "claimed," or "said to be."  That is so lame.  All one has to do is make clear whose perspective it is.  I don't want skepticism or affirmation as part of the definition/summary, either.  So, if the article is not under a specific umbrella, such as "spirituality" or "parapsychology," we have to find another way to limit this.  Any ideas? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Medium (spirituality) 

message: P.P.S. The article on channelling should also be merged into medium.  The reason to merge to "medium" is that "medium" is the older, historical term, used more than a hundred years ago and investiagted by the SPR.  Channelling is more New Age.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree with just merging Channelling into Medium into Mediumship.  The more I read, the more of a distinct difference I'm seeing between a Medium and a Channel - at least in recent US history.  It might be better if we created a Channeling (new age) article that describes the recent utilization of "Channel" in the United States.  Then again, because they're so closely intermixed, perhaps a "channel" section in the Mediumship article would do fine.  Thoughts? Dreadlocke  ☥  21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way.  You could just describe the difference in a "Mediumship" article.  That would be highly useful context for readers.  Good idea to have it under "Mediumship."  But whatever the case, I don't want an article where every other word is "supposed," or "claimed," or "said to be."  That is so lame.  All one has to do is make clear whose perspective it is.  I don't want skepticism or affirmation as part of the definition/summary, either.  So, if the article is not under a specific umbrella, such as "spirituality" or "parapsychology," we have to find another way to limit this.  Any ideas? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Channelling

message: Why is material published by the JREF not allowed, but it is OK to cite sources such as those in the references section of this page? Surely those spiritualist pages are also "self-published"? Please argue this point before deleting these challenge details. Stevepaget 08:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't the point.  The point was that the Zammit challenge was said to be sourced improperly because the cited source was self-published, but the JREF could also be considered self-published.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-published material

message: Why is Houdini's crusade against phoney mediums ignored? --- LuckyLouie 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's being ignored as much as it just wasn't thought of to begin with.  Feel free to add it.  If the merger goes through, it's a moot point anyway, because it's already part of the Medium (spirituality) article.  Dreadlocke  ☥  19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraud section

message: Is it normal/harder to channel people who died quietly and slowly, or violently, like skull crushed on pavement? Like twins I mean.
Juan Herrera Juanfhj 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mode of decease important to communication? 

message: I moved the headings-- I think they were moved before. I would think it would start with history.  That's the way other things do. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 09:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings