Talk:Mediumship

message: Spiritism is not unique to Europe, this article needs to be expanded to include Korean Shamanism and Japanese Shinto, clearly. 
This is not pseudoscience this is anthropology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troll ov Grimness (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shinto and Muism . Please merge, reference, link to.. 

message: There are conflicting needs for this article. If you want to have an article that explains the subject in a balanced way, then you are going to need to be more evenhanded about sources. As in most of these subjects about the paranormal, the mainstream is either not writing about them or it is debunking them. The mainstream does not know much about the subjects and if you want to tell the reader what the subject is, then it will be necessary to either do so without references or use references from the people who are in the culture.
I am fine with deleting all verbiage that is not directly supported by mainstream academic material. But that also means that blogs and column--mainstream or not--cannot be used.
Once again, I ask you to review the arbitration reports:
::Look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science [2] Principles: Prominence and Advocacy
::And Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal [3] Principles: Neutral point of view, Basis for inclusion, Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content; Finding of fact: Advocacy, and after looking around at who is still editing, Chilling effect
Tom Butler (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: and, this Tom Butler (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

text: You would be within your rights to take this matter to arbitration enforcement if you feel that the decision is not being respected. Carefully read the "How to file a request" instructions at the top of the page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It is also a matter of time management. Well,actually, I know I will be outnumbered a hundred to one whether or not I am correct. Tom Butler (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source 

message: Here is a better reference. I don't have toime today to fight with you over sources.
DIRECT VOICE, an isolated voice in space without visible source of agency. It issues mostly from a trumpet which sails about the seance room in the dark and appears to serve as a condenser. With an increase of power the trumpet may be dispensed with and the voice may be heard from the center of the floor or from any part of the room.
Nandor Fodor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandor_Fodor ) Encyclopedia of Psychic Science Encyclopaedia of Psychic Science 
Also at http://www.scribd.com/doc/61675145/dic-Fodor-Encyclopedea-Of-Psychic-Science
:By LuckyLouie, the way, the JSE has been referenced in the Ian Stevenson article without a problem. What is yours with them? Tom Butler (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tom. I think most editors will agree that 'Fodor's Encyclopedia of Psychic Science' presents its fringe ideas in much too credulous a manner (e.g., they allege George Adamski contacted aliens, they call automatic writing "one of the most valuable spiritual gifts",  etc.) and would not be considered an 'independent' reliable tertiary source. Regarding the JSE as a source: I don't understand how an essay describing Ian Stevenson's interests being referenced in our biography article of Ian Stevenson has any bearing on this article, or the material you wish to present in it. I might guess that the editors working on Ian Stevenson formed a consensus that agreed to allow that particular JSE article to be referenced since it contained noncontroversial material or general assertions confirmed in more reliable media. Looking over the list of stuff you want included in this article, a lot of it strikes me as somewhat dogmatic and originating from isolated primary sources that aren't sufficiently notable. If you can locate some independent 3rd party coverage of those concepts I'd be glad to help write them into the article with proper attribution and framing. Cheers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that. Tom Butler (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Direct Voice

message: In my opinion, "Mediumship" is a poorly chosen title for this article. It forces the article to define 'what mediums do' then quickly shoehorn in 'what mediums are'. A better article title is "medium"; define 'what a medium is' followed by 'what they do'. "Mediumship" can then be a redirect to "medium", similar to how sainthood is treated. There's an old discussion that raised some valid points but never went anywhere. Good idea to revisit the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A good proposal, but Medium is not available because of the multiple meanings. Medium_(spirituality) is the current redirect: is it appropriate? MartinPoulter (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear.  Spirituality is very different from Spiritualism.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mediumship" is pretty specific to the subject while "medium" in this context needs to be distinguished from medium as in "medium of propagation," print medium" and "medium size." The subject is really mediumship, as in "there are many modes of mediumship which are all practiced by mediums." Tom Butler (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Looking at the history, I see that the earliest version of this article was indeed titled "Medium (spirituality)." The present article ("Mediumship") was originally created  as a POV fork of "Medium". Later, "Medium (spirituality) was merged into "Mediumship" for reasons I can't quite fathom but apparently having to do with 'scientific parapsychology'(?). - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: The assertion Spiritualists believe that all phenomena produced by mediums (both mental and physical mediumship) is the result of external spirit agencies is sourced to Super-Psi and the Survivalist Interpretation of Mediumship By Michael Sudduth, published in Journal of Scientific Exploration 23 (2009).  This may not be a reliable source for fringe matters, but of more concern to me at the moment is that it does not support the assertion anyway.  The paper contrasts "survivalists" with believers in "super-psi", and the term "survivalist" does not appear to be equivalent to "spiritualist": indeed the assertion with "survivalist" in place of "spiritualist" appear to be a tautology.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as somebody who has read 1000s of books and journals published by the SPR on this topic, I can say that the "survivalist hypothesis" = Spiritualist hypothesis there is no doubt about this, they mean the same thing, in recent years however the Survivalist hypothesis has replaced the "spiritualist hypothesis" as some of these investigators do not want to be associated with the religion of spiritualism. This is explained in detail in An Encyclopaedia of Occultism by Lewis Spence and well documented in other books and reports, the spiritualist hypothesis is little mentioned today, researchers prefer the word  as Survivalist they also put other phenomena under that term aswell. GreenUniverse (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please add some independent reliable sources supporting that assertion to the article.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypotheses 

message: Hey guys,
I have a friend of mine who believes in "non-physical essences" and believes in The Law of Attraction, Esther Hicks, and Bashar, etc. He also believes in meditation and talking to the dead. So, what I am wondering is what religion or what form of religion practices these exact beliefs? If you could tell me that would be great because I want to learn more about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.152.220 (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What religious movements practice Mediumship? 

message: I'm going to try a rearrangement, but no change of content. Let's see how it looks. If anyone has questions about why, or disagrees, let's discuss it here. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrange 

message: Is there an article or list here which contains such information? D. D. Palmer and A. T. Still come to mind. Palmer claimed to have received chiropractic from "the other world" through seances. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Spiritualists will suffice. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous customers/believers in mediums 

message: Is there anything to back up the statement 'Attempts to contact the dead date back to early human history'?--92.17.9.147 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early human history 

message: Currently the article twice uses the term "platform mediumship" without defining it. Would a knowledgeable person please find a reference and add it? Thanks. 129.219.155.89 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform mediumship 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mediumship. 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/20101224015404/http://parapsych.org/historical_terms.html to http://parapsych.org/historical_terms.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120215806/http://www.parapsych.org/glossary_a_d.html to http://parapsych.org/glossary_a_d.html
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) 14:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mediumship. 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/20070212132117/http://veritas.arizona.edu/index.htm to http://veritas.arizona.edu/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821224454/http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2893543/detail.html to http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2893543/detail.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927114745/http://www.libertymagazine.com/icons_houdini.htm to http://www.libertymagazine.com/icons_houdini.htm
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) 18:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mediumship. 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/20131014065032/http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/130926-04.html to http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/130926-04.html
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) 00:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The word "medium" has the same ieigib and the same extent of meaning than the word "mediator": the medium is an human being which talks and has contact with any kind of other living and free entity which exists our of the human kind.
Let you search about "Medium OF ANGELS" and have a look to the results. 
Even though there may be master spirits, dead people and so on in respect of the function, then in the Christian, Jewish and Islamic faith there basically exist only two types of entities: angels and humans. 
The difference is that angels are immortal as they can not have an human body (immortal because uncorporeous). All other differences related on what they know and what they do are derived by this  main difference said above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.53.27 (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediumship of angels or demons 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spiritualistic research. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritualistic research listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I just did a rollback of a number of edits made by single editor providing information with virtually no citations. RobP (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the list of fiction as well. There is a huge amount of fiction about mediumship and a comprehensive list would overwhelm the article. Such a list could potentially be interesting and can be established independently if it satisfies WP:LISTN. If not, a new sub-category at :Category:Fiction about psychic powers would be viable alternative. Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations not provided 

message: There have been changes to the lead initiated by a SPA, changing the opening sentence to define mediumship as a pseudo-science.
This is incorrect. Mediumship is a paranormal belief: at best a form of spiritualism not backed up by mainstream science, at worst a criminal practice. Mental disorders fall somewhere in between. Paranormal phenomena are often the subject of pseudo-science investigatory methods that sometimes offer a rationale or attempt to legitimise the phenomena, but the phenomena itself is not a "pseudo science". Regardless of the legitimacy of the act it is clearly defined: it is the act of communicating with/channeling the dead. This not in dispute regardless of where you stand on the issue; it is the definition. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal and the scientific basis of mediumship is just one perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the wrong approach. See WP:OR. We do not think and reason about stuff and put the results of our thoughts and reasonings in articles. Instead, we repeat what reliable sources are saying. So, if you want to say that MS is PS, what you need to do is find reliable sources that say so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very simple. By not stating that mediumship is pseudoscience, you are implying it is something else than pseudoscience. Do you see a problem with this? Is mediumship science? No? Well, then it is pseudoscience. The casual reader might not understand this. There is no need for a reliable source to make this claim. To put forward the claim that simply defining something as a category of pseudoscience is original research creates a whole new meaning of the word "research". This is simply putting something in its correct category, that, by itself, is not research.Flowcode (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Something is not automatically defined as pseudoscience simply because it does not have a scientific basis. Pseudoscience is the specific practice of providing alternative explanations that contradict science, such as climate change denial or alternative medicine, both of which often invoke pseudoscience (although not always). Parapsychology has often been accused of practising pseudoscience, and sometimes makes the case for the legitimacy of mediumship. Mediumship, however, does not advance explanations or utilise the "scientific method", it advances a spiritual claim/belief which is subject to scientific, medical and criminal investigation. You are advancing WP:Original research. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, it is an encylopedia. Per MOS:OPEN "the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." Mediumship has a clear definition, regardless of whether it has any basis in fact. Betty Logan (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: It is even simpler than that. I told you what to do: Find a reliable source saying it is pseudoscience. There is no other way. Please read the relevant Wikipedia rules pages, starting with WP:OR. Another page that would be relevant for you is WP:IDHT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually. It is even simpler than all of this. You guys are simply protecting the article by abusing WP:OR. Stating that this is pseudoscience is not a "discovery" or any kind of research, it is merely semantics, similarly to rewriting the statement that scientific studies have shown that there is no merit whatsoever to "mediumship". It has no falsifiable hypothesis, yet it makes outrageous claims about the physical nature. That is pseudoscience. You simply don't like the fact that this is pseudoscience, so whenever it shows up, you feel annoyed and wish to revert it. However, your feelings on the matter, doesn't change facts. You yourself state that "Pseudoscience is the specific practice of providing alternative explanations that contradict science", mediumship, which is completely incompatible with modern physics, and doesn't even offer a properly defined mechanism (except to state it exists!) to explain how exactly mediumship works, is also psueodscience. I cannot explain it any more clearly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowcode (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: (OR) I am not sure this is any more pseudoscientific than any other form of faith. (now policy-based) do RS call it pseudoscience?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell that is the editor's own opinion. I can't access the sources he keeps adding in, but they appear to be psychology texts that no doubt discuss mediumship in terms of psychological theory. Even if a reliable source can be found that defines it as pseudoscience that doesn't justify relegating the main definition: the articles at Creationism and Flat Earth are both still defined in the opening sentence, despite the factually flawed premise. Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediumship is just as factually flawed as Creationism and Flat Earth. Mediumship, creationism, and "flat earth" all make bold statements which violate the laws of physics, statements which any application of Occams Razor will prune away. If you disagree, I welcome you to demonstrate the difference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowcode (talk • contribs) 17:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Flat-earth has a testable premise that scientific investigation can disprove. Creationism is a bit tougher, but some of the claims (like the Earth being 6,000 years old) are testable. That is not the case with mediumship. For some occurrence to "violate" the laws of physics science must be able to disprove the occurrence. Mediumship has more in common with prayer, but with bells and whistles. Would we describe a prayer as "pseudoscience" or "imaginary"? No, because it is a spiritual belief with no testable premise. Betty Logan (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Mediumship" is a term used primarily by proponents, so you won't find an independent scholarly source that includes the sentence "mediumship is pseudoscience'. Such sources more commonly address the topic in the context of "psychic mediums" or "contact with the dead", etc. And there are plenty of them characterizing it as pseudoscience:     . - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but these sources do not characterise "mediumship" itself as "pseudoscience". Let's take your first source: "How does one test a medium...First attempts were pseudoscientific and simply involved having a medium talk to a relative of the deceased." In this case the pseudoscience relates to the test of the medium. The second source notes that a "number of distinguished scientists examined various mediums" and discusses flawed test conditions, but at no point characterises the act of channeling the dead as pseudoscience. The third source actually characterises mediumship as "spiritualism" and compares it to "weird science" in how captured the imagination of the public. Texts about pseudoscience will often discuss mediumship because pseudoscientific methods are often employed by paranormal investigators and parasychologists. What is clear from these sources is that a lot of research into mediumship is characterised as pseudoscience, but mediumship itself is something that is clearly defined and mostly characterised as spiritualism or fraud. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, Christianity makes a lot of claims about God, angels, demons, effectiveness of prayer, and so on, but Christianity is not pseudoscience, it is non-science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Mediumship is one of the concepts used within that pseudoscience, like psychokinesis or remote viewing. Those are not pseudosciences themselves, they are pseudoscientific concepts or ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediumship is not a "pseudoscience" 

message: This article violates WP:NPOV.
Most readers will only read the introduction, and the introduction, the first abstract, appears to suggest that talking to the dead, is actually possible.
This is an outrageous statement. The very same article lists numerous scientific references which demonstrate that such a thing is not possible.
Finally, in the third paragraph, which many casual readers might never bother reading, it is stated that "An experiment undertaken by the British Psychological Society led to the conclusion that the test subjects demonstrated no mediumistic ability.[8]".
The scientific opinion is given no authority. It is as if, mere anecdotal stories and gossip is given as much weight, actually, more weight, than the scientific consensus.
This is obviously outrageous, and any attempt at protecting this is blatant abuse and twisting of the Wikipedia rules in favor of a subjective preference as to what should be in the article. This is NOT NETURAL.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowcode (talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is not neutral 

message: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:
:"Wikipedia’s policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
:What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.   "
So yes, we are biased.
We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change.
--Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, but you wouldn't say that Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are pseudoscience. There lies the rub. I'm sympathetic to calling mediumship "fraud", but it still is a religious practice (not psychic pay phone lines, those are a business). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: When someone in Christianity, Islam or Hinduism makes a claim that is outside of science ("God exists" or "you go to heaven when you die" for example) we treat it as religion and not pseudoscience. When supposedly scientific claims are made by members of those religions (Creation science, Energy (esotericism), Islamic exorcism, Hindu cosmology) we treat those claims as religious pseudoscience. We have an article on this: Relationship between religion and science. You will note that my "yes, we are biased" list contains zero purely religious beliefs. -Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because some people tried to make science or medical science out of the Bible, supernatural magic, the Quran and the Vedas. But, generally speaking, psychics do not pretend to do science. So, it could be very well fraud, but they have to claim they are doing science in order to be pseudoscience. It does not apply to Ayurveda and acupuncture, because their proponents pretend those are backed up by scientific research, so those are pseudoscience exactly because they claim those are supported by modern science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure where exactly pseudoscience fits into this article, perhaps not in the first sentence of the lead, but it can be mentioned somewhere, given the number of sources that discuss it in the context of pseudoscience     . If mediumship is primarily a religious belief, I'm not sure which religion it is a tenet of. If it is Spiritualism, then the opening sentence might clarify this, e.g. "In Spiritualism, mediumship is the practice of...." - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  I didn't feel like commenting here before but since I see reality-based editors disagreeing, I too agree that it's not black and white...  As was stressed above, we first need sources, then they probably are about specific aspects that are obviously pseudoscience.  A number of divination systems are pseudoscientific (this includes numerology, astrology and tarot for instance).  The "criminal" mention is also interesting and studies have demonstrated that horoscopes and mediums often play on simple psychology related to things like confirmation bias and generalizations, that independent observers can see as a type of deception or fraud.  Some practitioners may not know themselves, some may also trick themselves into grandiose beliefs and some may also throw in interpretations of hallucinations achieved by substances or other means, use creative intuition, etc.  For practical reasons context is important and any mention of pseudoscience could be specific to aspects that have been called such by sources...  —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes. We ''are'' biased. 

message: In light of recent edit warring, I want to point out that I can understand why the phrase “the practice of purportedly” seems wrong structurally, however the alternative proposed with its odd parenthetical was not an improvement to the existing lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a semantic thing. I think we are all trying to say the same thing but disagree on the sentence structure. The reason I reverted is because the "practice" is a real, tangible event that occurs (so the practice itself is not "purported"), but rather the function of the practice is what is disputed. There is no reason to parenthesise the word, the only real question is whether the "purported" should come before or after the practice. I'm no grammar expert so I am happy to be corrected on this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Betty, which is why I reverted the recent changes. I would urge the other editor to discuss the issue here rather than further edit war. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree that we are ultimately trying to say the same thing. But I do not think the real, tangible, event you are identifying, Betty, is the same as the "practice": going through the motions involved in the practice might not be sufficient for actually being engaged in the practice. For a comparatively stark example, there is a just as real and tangible of an event when a parrot says "I do" as when a person says "I do"--but the person is engaged in the practice of getting married, or promise-keeping, or whatever, and the parrot is not. This shows that even if a practice involves a certain event, an event is not the same as a practice. I take it that this is a point that both putative practitioners of mediumship and deniers would accept. We don't want it to be the case that, say, "purporting to be a medium between the living and the dead", qualifies as mediumship, do we? I take it that neither believers nor disbelievers would accept that: disbelievers wouldn't accept it, since that means they couldn't question whether someone possesses mediumship, and believers wouldn't accept, since surely they do not think that just anyone who goes through the movements involved in the practice (embodying a real tangible event), thereby successfully engages in the practice (the function not really ultimately being separable from what the practice is in this case, since satisfaction of the function is a measure of whether one is genuinely engaging with the practice). But if "purporting" belongs within the scope of "practice" this result is grammatically unavoidable. The only way I know how to fix it is by placing "putative" or "purported" outside the scope of practice and have it modify practice. I wholeheartedly agree that this is not as stylistically elegant as a sentence, but it is grammatically correct nonetheless, and it makes a relevant difference in meaning. Anyway, that's my two cents--obviously not everyone will agree.Caaalebbb (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . Wikipedia isn’t concerned with what either group accepts. It’s only concerned with reflecting what WP:RS say about the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "practice of purportedly mediating communication" but I promise I won't lose sleep over whatever is decided. Sgerbic (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree that in characterizing, for example, the eating habits of a cheetah, what people accept or don’t accept doesn’t matter: the facts are what they are absolutely independently of what anyone thinks. But in characterizing a human practice, where part of what it is to participate in that practice is to understand oneself under the idea of that practice, it does matter what people “would accept” as a description of the idea under which would-be practitioners act. I was only drawing attention to the neutrality and universality of the point I was making, by noting that all parties to the dispute would accept the uncomplicated point that, however we understand the would-be practice of mediumship, we can coherently question whether a self-described medium really is a medium.24.131.18.38 (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, just making sure you understand the encyclopedia's editorial policies. New or infrequent editors sometimes have trouble understanding how NPOV applies (e.g. WP:NOTNEUTRAL), especially when dealing with WP:FRINGE topics. In this case, the encyclopedia leans toward the viewpoint of the several academic independent sources that explicitly characterize claims of communication between the living and the dead as false, unsubstantiated, or pseudoscientific. So we have no problem being explicit in the text of our encyclopedic definition. Someone who claims to mediate communication between spirits of the dead and living human beings is known as a "medium". We might take a closer look at our cited sources to see how they use the word "mediumship", if they define it as a process, a practice, a quality, or something else, i.e. non-independent sources have referred to it as a quality (e.g. "John Smith possessed a high degree of mediumship"). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: WP:CLAIM says,  That is exactly what we should do in this case, because of WP:FRINGE. We will not assume a some-say-this-some-say-that stance regarding to fantasy subjects such as spirits and soothsaying. So, "claim" is the best word here. --Hob Gadling (talk)
:"Claim" is not an appropriate word to use unless it is attributed. When we discuss the scientific evidence for and against mediumship then claims should be clearly attributed as per MOS:WEASEL. When the article discusses mediumship as a spiritual belief then it should be discussed in the same neutral language that is used to commentate on other spiritualistic beliefs and religions. Betty Logan (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty obvious that the people who claim to be able to do stuff are the ones who claim to be able to do stuff. THe article now has this weird construction where the claims are made by nobody specific: "is claimed to", but it should not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Words like "purported" and "profess" are completely synonymous in meaning with terms like "claim" and "allege", but don't carry the negative connotations of intentional dishonesty, which begs the question why we would choose the latter over the former. I am getting the impression that you favor them precisely because of the negative connotations. Ideally, it should not be possible to tell which side of the debate somebody is on if they have employed neutrally worded prose. Betty Logan (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I can go with "purported" and "profess".Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

text: It is weirdly worded, but it was you who mangled the sentence, by replacing neutral words with synonymous ones which carried negative connotations. There is no semantic difference between "profess" and "claim" in the way the words are used in the sentence, and therefore no reason for altering them, unless of course your intention is for the article to have an "unbelieving" tone rather than a skeptical one. Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Purportedly" is clunky, but accurate. Mediumship is a characteristic that requires someone to attest to it. It is never a diagnosis nor a credential, for example. It's a self-identifying claim in line with psychic powers and channeling. jps (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim 

message: The sources which I have removed do not fulfill WP:REDFLAG, and are thus not reliable sources.
As I have stated before,  tgeorgescu (talk)  04:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbage in, garbage out 

message: Regarding this edit, the paper by Etzel Cardeña represents the fringe view rather than the relevant expert view , so we cannot cite it to have the article say that there is objective evidence to support  claims of contacting the dead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etzel Cardeña paper as a source 

message: It says: "During the séance a spirit face materialized which Home claimed was the son of Browning who had died in infancy. Browning seized the "materialization" and discovered it to be the bare foot of Home. To make the deception worse, Browning had never lost a son in infancy." But how can someone mistake a bare foot for a baby's head? I am a Green Bee (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is the point, they were not fooled. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Daniel Douglas Home article clarifies that Browning saw . A foot rubbed with phosphorous oil (a favorite Home trick) can create a vague enough image in a dark room to persuade suggestible witnesses they are seeing some "glowing spirit face". - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head or Foot?