Talk:Spiritualism (beliefs)

message: Had a stab at improving the start of this topic ... I am not sure about its place here or between other topics such as Mediumship. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: For example, citations supporting the quote of "Leibniz as the father of modern spiritualism". The first contains it directly
*
* 
*
Now, where are yours Neal? That is the difference between us. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pick one:  (note most of them refer to Spiritualism (big S), or cut to the cliff notes: . Note the association with existing Wikipedia articles, for example: "The word spirit can be substituted for “mind” or even placed above it; and “Spiritualism” is often used, especially in Europe, as a synonym for Idealism." That's your complaint, right? That in Europe spiritualism has a different meaning, one that puts Leibniz as the "Father" of it. Well here's a reference that talks exactly about that and says it's just Idealism (per the reference), so go edit that article and insert "In Europe, spiritualism is often used as a synonym for Idealism" and quit with the wiki drama. --Nealparr (talk to me) 11:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations supporting Leibniz as the father of modern spiritualism (nothing to do with animism!). 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support move of the current "Spiritualism" article to "Spiritualism (beliefs)"; and of "Spiritualism (religious movement)" back to its original title, "Spiritualism."  The term "Spiritualism," with capital "S" and without verbal qualification, is generally applied to the Spiritualist movement that began in New York State in 1847 and spread to Europe, Latin America and elsewhere.  Nihil novi (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Lucy.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: America no more owns the title to "Spiritualism" that it does to "Football" (and in case you don't know what football is, please follow the link). This is basically the form I imagine for a wholistic topic on the use of the word spiritualism and related practises. For those that are not convinced, please spend some time on academic networks reading papers or at least do a Google for Modern Spiritualism or Modern American Spiritualism which is apparently what you really want a topic on. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: OK, I am here. Please let us be specific Athon.
Which citations are you referring to and why do you feel they are not quoted or conveyed correctly? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources" 

message: I'd rather take the example of the Football topic. This is what I have in mind and this is what the academic references I have used illustrate. 
Ask an American what "football" is, he is going to tell you linebackers etc. Ask anyone else in the world what American Football is and they will tell you the same ... not so football, futbol or whatever. So ... spiritualism and Modern American Spiritualism.
Ditto art and Modern art ... why would Modern Art be called "modern" if there was not an ancient or original art? If someone was to write a topic on Modern Art and claim because it is all they know about and by google modern art is the most popular use of the term, should we allow it to take the title art?
I think not. 
In this case, we know that both the original Modern Spiritualists both believed in the continuity of spiritualism throughout all time but also that they and their commentators were largely ignorant of the rest of the world at that time. This has, of course, changed and academia has studied not just the syncretism of Modern Spiritualism with other traditional and indigenous forms but also documented the similarity in contexts and practises. 
This is not "my opinion", "my synthesis" ... it is in the references. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Football

message: I've stated my objections to the content, and have other more pressing things to do. So I just wanted to leave a note in case someone had a question for me that I may not get to right away. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Context, context, context! When you talk to am American, you think Super Bowl. When you talk to a British person, you think head butting a ball and riots in the street. When you talk about Spiritualism, you think about the system of belief known as Spiritualism. When you talk to a Shaman, you think of shamanic practices. Sounds like Intellectual 101 to me.
"Irrational instability" can be cured by less irrelevant American bashing and a little more negotiation. So far, you have only negotiated as long as it has been your way. When it has not gone your way, you hijacked the article. You are right, that is very Un-American. Tom Butler (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to act on the servey

message: I created the disambiguation page and renamed the "beliefs" page to Spiritualism (beliefs and practices). Remaining is the question of whether "Spiritualism (religious movement)" is renamed to "Spiritualism", or something else. Discuss...
--Nealparr (talk to me) 17:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I flagged up on the other talk page. The moves all happened without a clear consensus and beyond the remit of the discussion. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The related discussion:  Feel free to chime in and express your views. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Made the changes per above

message: The move is closed and Spiritualism is now back to what it used to be. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move closed

message: Why is spritiualism considered to be dualism? Steve Dufour (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All spiritualism presumes a fundamental dualism of mind and matter. I have been trying to organize many belief, -isms, and theory articles under their appropriate categories under the theories category tree. I am interested in making sure that spiritual and religious theories are also covered under the metaphysics category tree, however I am not interested in spiritualism being kept under philosophical theories directly or metaphysics directly (because it's not real philosophy). Placing spiritualism under dualism accomplishes what I am am trying to accomplish category-wise... and it makes sense. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I guess in that sense it works. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dualism?

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was no consensus for move, especially given the earlier discussion (with wide participation) that resulted in the current name.  Abecedare (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Spiritualism (beliefs) → Spiritualism — The more general title "Spiritualism" should be reserved for the most general concept (people who believe that there is such a thing as spirit: Spiritualism). More specific instances should have more specific titles (a particular monotheistic group: Spiritualist Church). Furthermore it is the general concept that people are wikilinking to with this name, not some specific group. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose: You are trying to stir up an old fight. What you see today is the solution after a lot of discussion.  Why not read the talk page of Spiritualism?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have seen some discussion, however, I am unaware of any big fight. The "solution" of concocting "(beliefs)" really only serves to place a particular article in a prominent position it doesn't warrant. Words ending in -ism should be reserved exclusively for general terms, not any particular organization (consistent with all the other -isms). There are many and varied groups participating in "Spiritualism." Let's show some respect, by not favoring any particular one because of an accident of naming. Incidentally, the proper name of the organization currently described in Spiritualism is not "Spiritualism" so that alone requires attention.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment:Let me repeat myself, Spiritualism is not an "organization". The Spiritualist Churches ARE organizations. They are a subset of Spiritualism, which through most of its history was "unorganized" (let me invite you again to read the article). As to whether all beliefs in spirit are properly called Spiritualism, that's not at all clear (even what is meant by spirit is not at all clear). But the most common use of the word Spiritualism is certainly the religious movement, beginning in the United States in the 1840s, and widespread until the 1920s. By WP:NCCN the article Spiritualism is correctly named.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Response: The organized/nonorganized Spiritualism is irrelevant really. This is a theistic version of Spiritualism which is less general than Spiritualism (beliefs) and therefore it is only right, fair, appropriate and consistent to move it. Yes all beliefs in "spirit" consist in some form of spiritualism as covered in Spiritualism (beliefs). No the most common use of the word "Spiritualism" does not consist in the religious movement dating from the 1840's. Not by a very long shot?!?! I am quite surprised by that claim. Most folks never heard of them, but everyone has heard of the general concept. It is quite unfair and inconvenient to those readers looking for and linking to it. Perhaps moving it to Spiritualism (theism) or Spiritualism (movement) would be more appropriate. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 2

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Spiritualism (beliefs). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722152223/http://www.thestatesmanonline.com/pages/news_detail.php?newsid=4138§ion=15 to http://www.thestatesmanonline.com/pages/news_detail.php?newsid=4138§ion=15
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified