Talk:Xenoglossy

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: The section is very vague and hard to understand. Maybe instead of retelling we could just cite the whole thing. It's only 13 lines.--Tired time (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  section "[[Xenoglossy#In_religion|In religion]]" 

message: What does the following sentence mean?
"Three books on the case have been published and two gramophone discs of xenoglossy have been recorded."
Does it mean:
a) Three books on the Rosemary case have been published and two gramophone discs of OTHER examples of xenoglossy have been recorded.
OR
b) Three books on the Rosemary case have been published and two gramophone discs of HER OWN examples of xenoglossy have been recorded.
?
If it is the latter, why prohibits scholars of today examining them as the following sentence of the article implies?
Please clarify this sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.67.59 (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: [[The Rosemary case]]

message: So far as I can tell, xenoglossia is by far the more common term. (Quick Google check:  xenoglossia, 535,000 hits; xenoglossy, 65,000 hits.)  It does not seem to be a regional English issue; it appears that  xenoglossia is the accepted scientific/linguistic term, and xenoglossy an older term, perhaps from a religious or pseudoscience origin. 
I propose this as a noncontroversial page move. Comments solicited.  Thanks, --MCB (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal is indeed controversial, since the subject of this article isn't Idolmaster: Xenoglossia wich represent the vast majority of your extra google hits. Glossolalia seems to be about the religious phenomenona and xenoglossy is about the parapsychological phenomena this article covers. No name change needed just yet, xenoglossia is mentioned in the opening paragraph. Hepcat65 (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title? 

message: Should the 13th warrior really be classified as xenoglossy? Given the definition it's more a paranormal experience, "he or she could not have acquired by natural means." This would seem contrary to the statement in the movie by way of "I listened" If I recall the trip took a long time and him paying attention and listening to the words is implied that he 'learned' the language despite improbable and difficult to learn in a non instructive manner. If I recall, doesn't this also happen in last samurai too, where after living with them he learns to speak their language by listening? Perhaps this should be removed as an example?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.33.189 (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be in the article - it is simply a narrative trick to show how he Ibn Fadlan learned the language through interaction. I also removed the other pop culture reference since it was equally tangential to the topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  13th warrior 

message: The article previously stated:"For example, a person who speaks German fluently, but who has never studied it, never been to a German-speaking country, and never associated with German speakers, would be said to exhibit xenoglossy."
That is biased and incorrect. A native German speaker can be born in a foreign country. He would never study German (since he's native he learnt it as a little kid from his mother), never been to a German speaking country, and never associated with German speakers (outside his parents, but his parents can also die when he's 7 or so).
The bias here, is that the article assumes that the native language of anyone is English. I have corrected this bias by adding that someone who is NOT a native German speaker and never studied German etc., might be said to exhibit xenoglossia.
By the way, this doesn't seem to be real, at least not in everyday life -- I'm a Christian and Christians believed it happened once with the Apostles, but are there scientifically documented cases today? I doubt it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglophone/U.S. bias 

message: I think that somewhere on this page should be the example of that claimed by late science fiction author Philip K Dick, who claimed to have an experience where he spoke a rare form of Greek, which was understood by his wife at the time, who inaccurately thought of it as Koine Greek.
This could be an unsubstantiated case, but should exist under ubsubstantiated cases nonetheless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.190.254 (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip K Dick case 

message: Here is one reference
http://people.csail.mit.edu/hanna/Egypt/index06.html
" The camel was not a domestic animal. It appears in the records of the First, the nineteenth, and the twenty-fifth Dynasties but was probably an importation as it certainly was in the Roman period when it was used as a water carrier. Not until the Arab invasion did the camel become an acclimatized domestic animal in Egypt."
Jpg1954 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camels not used for transport in Ancietn Egypt 

message: Being German, may I state that "Bettzimmer" in an existing word in German indeed, while admittedly not being a stand-alone word:
it is usually used in tourism in connection with "Ein-", "Zwei-" or "Mehr-", "Familien-" etc., the prefix giving the number of beds within one room to be let.
So for example, "Zweibettzimmer" (or "2-Bettzimmer", "2-Bett-Zimmer", "Zweibett-Zimmer") would mean a room with two beds in it, in English a.f.a.i.k. referred to as to "a double".
Interesting, that Gretchen stated that word when was being asked what she had had for breakfast; could it be possible that she had read a travel brochure in German before, where the prases "(x-)Bettzimmer" and "Frühstück" (i.e., breakfast) could have been easily found close to each other? If Gretchen's were not a case of true xenoglossy, this could help explain that particular answer of hers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhein-matthes (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gretchen and German word "Bettzimmer" 

message: It is currently entirely based on Primary research. Zambelo (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also seem to remember that glossolalia is usually used to refer to the "speaking in tongues" phenomenon, which still occurs in some evangelical christian sects ceremonies, which they attribute to the "holy spirit".  Although this article links to it, possibly that the section on christianity also should... Finding a reference for this would probably be easier.  76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Christianity needs references 

message: I want to ask anyone who is interested in this page (Xenoglossy) to compare the current version of this page with the version before October 2014. If you find that the previous version to be more detailed, informative and more reflective of the academic research done on the phenomenon Xenoglossy, please add a sentence here to support returning the page to it's original shape.74.195.244.87 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of our version (It is not even ours. It is the version that has been up for 6 years) does not comply with the policy? On the contrary, this new version is not complying with the policy. The referencing is incorrect. It tells the story without pointing out to controlled study or data. There are claims without referring to the original studies, etc. Explain please what part of the previous version was not complying with Wikipedia policy. 74.195.244.87 (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The parts that are no longer there. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I ask for help 

message: Overall, I am fine with the revisions and streamlining.  However, I think it has gone a little too far in the "Alfred Hume" section.
First of all, you have removed the phrase "Rosemary Case", by which it has been known for many decades.  Anyone searching for "Rosemary Case" will not be directed to this page, and they should be.
Second, you have removed all the references to earlier papers and books refuting the case, leaving only a 21st century reference.  This makes it sound as if the case has only recenlty been refuted.  The removed references (Gunn and Ray/Fenwick) make it clear that it was refuted from the very beginning.
Would you please put them back in.
Jpg1954 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Native swedes from the Malmø area. I suspect they can tell... WegianWarrior (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Share more details with us please. What did they say exactly when you pronounced seven? Did you say it 10 times and they said it is okay or it was in another way. Please share more details.74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request reversal of some edits 

message: "There is no scientific evidence that xenoglossy is an actual phenomenon."
Statements like this always make me laugh: unless the author has personally surveyed all the evidence in the world, there can be no way of knowing this. What is meant is "I, the author, am personally unaware of any scientific evidence that xenoglossy is an actual phenomenon."
Although I grant you that in the case the assertion is very likely true, proving a negative is notoriously difficult.
Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No scientific evidence?