Talk:Spiritualism (movement)/Archive 1

message: Let's make a polite rule: if you wish to make a rating for a WikiProject, you must leave comments behind or your rating will be erased. The purpose of a rating is to provide guidance and feedback, not simply to increase the edit counts of whoever is making the rating. Let's also make a secondary rule: the comments left behind should be knowledgable, should actually provide guidance and feedback. If not, the rating will be erased. Thanks. Anthon.Eff 03:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I didn't 'replace' anything; I've never been here before. Second of all, I'm the project coordinator for WP:PARA; I've placed the ratings for essentially every page in our project. Third of all, there is no requirement to leave a comment about ratings; the banners are there primarily for use within the project anyway. Finally, I rated it B class because it fits the B class requirements. --InShaneee 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, but the history says otherwise: 22:53, 11 September 2006 InShaneee (Talk | contribs) (added wikiproject template) So you have been here before. But let's not quarrel. Lower those hackles and try to understand that those of us who actually contribute to this article are interested in useful feedback. For all I know, you are a 13 year old boy alone in his bedroom with a computer. How do I differentiate you from that hypothetical boy--by the comments that you leave behind. So let's have some useful comments, it's the polite thing to do. Otherwise, there really seems no reason to participate in your project. Anthon.Eff 05:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, you don't NEED to participate in 'my' project, nor was I asking you to. Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't allow for discrimination against any type of users; a '13 year old boy' 's contributions must be given the same respect as anyone else's. --InShaneee 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A 13 year old boy who knows something about what he is writing deserves the same respect as 50 year old college professors. Fine. But do you know something about what you are writing? Why are you resisting a simple request to leave behind some knowledgable comments? Do you know anything about Spiritualism? This is a challenge. Let's see your comments. Let's see if you are worthy of my respect. Anthon.Eff 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthon.Eff, you may wish to read WP:OWN.  It discusses who gets to make demands like these. ---J.S  (T/C) 10:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely the page I was just going to point you to myself. --InShaneee 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: InShaneee, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Civility. Anthon.Eff 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As may you, apparently, as I've done nothing incivil. --InShaneee 07:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject ratings

message: The doctrine of reincarnation may be widespread among today's Spiritualists, and it has long been a core belief in Spiritism, but it is lacking among the Spiritualists of the nineteenth century. In fact, the lack of a belief in reincarnation provides the best marker for distinguishing traditional Spiritualism from New Age beliefs and Spiritism (In the References, Braude 2001 and Carroll 1997 give detailed pictures of traditional Spiritualism). Thus I must disagree with 24.154.155.248, who asserts that Spiritualists believe in reincarnation, and can only assume that  24.154.155.248 refers to the current, syncretic practice (which is discussed two paragraphs further down in the article). Anthon.Eff 15:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Brazil at least "Spiritualism" is an umbrella term for various movements that preach the existence and religious relevance of some sort of "soul" or "spirit".  "Spiritism" is nearly always used to mean Kardecism (sometimes also Umbanda).  Although there are lots of misinformation around, neither Spiritism nor Spiritualism have much to do with Buddhism, which in fact specifically denies the existence of a true soul. Luis Dantas 00:17, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: BTW - I agree that some of the info in this article belongs to spiritism instead. Luis Dantas 00:18, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue with this: while there is a movement called Spiritism (ie Kardec), the term is also used as a pejorative name for Spiritualism (ie the Spiritualist church) by its opponents. For instance, The Catholic Encyclopedia uses "Spiritism" in that sense, while reserving "Spiritualism" as a philosophical term for the opposite of materialism. RayGirvan 00:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reincarnation

message: The current version of the article needs revision where it describes these two faiths' beliefs.  Buddhism does not have a true "soul" concept - it is one of the major differences between it and Hinduism; see Anatta - nor does it really support any true reincarnation concept; see Rebirth (Buddhism). Also, HPB does not really have similar reincarnation beliefs to those of Hinduism, which are arguably not at all homogeneous to begin with.  Her ideas are often presented as being accurate depictions of traditional Hinduist belief, but that is not the same thing. In fact, René Guénon and others claim that reincarnation is actually a 19th century concept. Luis Dantas 05:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism and Hinduism

message: I added Ugandan rebel leader, Joseph Kony, of the Lord's Resistance Army, to the list of well-known believers. freestylefrappe 03:54, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Spiritualism was a phenomenon of North America and--to a lesser extent--of Europe. It can be distinguished from the contemporaneous occult movements (the Theosophical Society of the 1870s, for example) by its focus on communicating with the dead--any dead, but especially with the relatives of the believers--whereas the occult movements sought to gain magical powers--Blavatsky, for example,communicated only with spirits who could convey occult knowledge. Someone like Joseph Kony--not from the time period, not from the geographical area, and who clearly claims to use occult powers (spells to bullet-proof his soldiers)--does not belong in an article on Spiritualism.Anthon.Eff 17:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Kony 

message: Should these be merged? -- nirvana2013 14:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Spiritualist Church into Spiritualism 

message: I added a link to a Dutch wikipedia article called "Spiritisme". Unlike English, where "Spiritism" seems to be limited to Kardec's teachings, there are many languages where words similar to "Spiritism" actually mean Spiritualism. So maybe the list of links to other languages could and should be longer; consequently, there are probably some links in the Spiritism article that in fact belong here, in the Spiritualism article.
GdB 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spiritualism" and "Spiritism" in other languages 

message: Spiritualism is usually seen as the movement beginning with the Fox sisters in 1848 (in upstate New York, where so many of the events of the Second Great Awakening occured). The movement can be described as extremely individualistic, so that efforts to form a national organization and a single coherent dogma largely failed. The lack of dogma and lack of widely accepted texts means that one cannot easily describe Spiritualism by talking of its content, as the present article does. It would be better to focus on its history as the Modern Spiritualist movement article does.Anthon.Eff 17:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Individual dogma is still dogma, and indeed it is often the most resilient variety of dogma. Luis Dantas 05:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Modern Spiritualist movement]] into [[Spiritualism]]?? 

message: I tried to trim down the article by paring off the portion relating to current Spiritualist practice and putting that in the Spiritualist Church article. Perhaps I am being overly bold, but my intention is to reserve the Spiritualist Church article for contributions pertaining to the current organized practice, and to reserve the Spiritualism article for contributions on the historical movement during its heyday (1840s-1920s). I think that way we will get two very useful articles out of the current hodgepodge. Anthon.Eff 17:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved some content to Spiritualist Church

message: I don't know much about Spiritualism, but only that it's discussed at great length in "Arthus and George," the novel about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. You conisder adding Doyle to the list of prominent members and a link to his page and the page about "Arthur and George." BernieD 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doyle

message: Someone needs to write an article for Cora L. V. Scott (the www.interfarfacing.com website prefers to call her Cora Richmond). Why don't you do that instead of vandalizing this article? Anthon.Eff 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: InterFarFacing

message: Blavatsky is perhaps not the best example of the spiritualist/occultist divide, as in its early years her Theosophical Society was very much interested in practical experimentation, magic, the Cabbala, and the like.  See especially material regarding the 1875 lecture by George Felt at the meeting at which the foundation of the Society was first proposed.--Danharms 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Blavatsky is not the best example, it would be nice to introduce a better example, rather than simply deleting sourced text. In the meantime, until you introduce your better example, I have reverted your edit. --Anthon.Eff 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blavatsky Example Cut

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article. 
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**correctly
**apparently
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with THE FOOTNOTE. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add .
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Anthon.Eff 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started the reference conversions... ---J.S  (T/C) 18:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated peer review

message: Franz Mesmer has got nothing to do with Spritiaulism. I don't see anything in Sir Authur Conan Doyle's History of Spiritualism about Franz Mesmer at all.
And surely if Franz Mesmer had had anything to do with the movement, it would mention it on Franz Mesmer's Wikipedia page (which it doesn't).
Please can someone validate Franz Mesmer's specific involvement in Spiritualism? A Medium's trance has little to do with hypnotism. So mentioning him next to Swedenborg is not on and needs to be removed.
If I am wrong, then fine, but I am sure that there are many people that could be mentioned who actually contributed to Spritiualism.
Franz Mesmer???? Spiritualism???  Surely not! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.236.148 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Franz Mesmer was not a part of the spiritualist movement, he was an influence on the spiritualist movement, dying about 30 years before the movement began. I could tell you more, but it's already in the article--maybe you should try reading it again. Anthon.Eff 16:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I never thought to add Helen Duncan since she falls after the period the article focuses upon. But feel free to say something about her here (she already has a pretty good article). The best place to mention her would probably be Developments after the 1920s. If you would like to work on something you might also take a look at the red links in the Other prominent mediums and believers section--Cora L. V. Scott really deserves an article. Anthon.Eff 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What has Franz Mesmer got to do with Spiritualism? 

message: I removed the following text,
:The belief that spirits of the dead can be contacted is not taken seriously in the academic world since, after over a century of investigation, there exist no scientifically rigorous studies or reproducible evidence to support the hypothesis.
for three reasons. First, it's not accurate, in the sense that people like Alfred Russel Wallace and William Crookes--clearly a part of the "academic world"--took spiritualism seriously. Second, it provides no source (reason enough to cut it out). Third, a statement like this doesn't belong in the introduction--try instead working sourced statements into the article, where appropriate, to show that specific independent investigators found no evidence of disembodied spirits (see the Seybert Commission reference for an example). Finally, let me pose a question--would you go to the article on Christianity and announce in the introduction that "the academic world doesn't take Christianity seriously, since there is no scientific evidence that Jesus is God"? If you wouldn't make such a statement there, you shouldn't make it here. Anthon.Eff 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you make some interesting points I think it should be noted that Alfred Russel Wallace and William Crookes died some time ago. In fact they were scientists who were living at the time of Queen Victoria. Are there any other academic figures since then who have taken spiritualism seriously?-Over the last century? Also, although spiritualism is described here as a 'religion'-it derives it's some of it's basic ideas on the premiss that the existence of spirits are empirically detectable-i.e table rapping etc. So there still remains a place for the scientific view here. --Godfinger 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, Spiritualism does make special claims, and that opens the door for a discussion of legerdemain and fraud. There is a section of the article where fraud is discussed. The dates are all kept before 1930 since only contemporaries could investigate spiritualist phenomena. William Crookes is really a fascinating case: he is considered to be one of the principal theorists of experimental design in chemistry and physics; he spent a great deal of time and money investigating spiritualist claims and came away completely convinced. Other reputable investigators, such as the Seybert Commission, concluded that Spiritualist mediums were all frauds. So we need to be careful when we talk about the "scientific view" to emphasize that that view is heterogeneous. Spiritualists such as Conan Doyle were ready to admit that some mediums were frauds, and even to admit that "true" mediums would occasionally commit fraud due to pressure to display phenomena on demand. So I think that some discussion of fraud wouldn't offend any Spiritualist. But to make an extremely POV statement in the introduction, as that anon editor did, would offend. --Anthon.Eff 19:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No scientific basis for disembodied spirits

message: I see in a previous comment that you focused more on the early years of Spiritualism. That is a good approach because "modern Spiritualism" remains linked to that past. The problem is that the reader might get the idea that Spiritualism is as described in this section. It is amongst dabblers, but it is not in the various church organizations. The "Spiritualist Church" entry does little more to explain "modern Spiritualism."
In fact, one of the USA groups, The National Spiritualist Association of Churches (NSAC) does maintain authority (via education and guidance) over content of church services practiced by its affiliates. Other than a few untrained ministers, shamanistic or New Age practices are simply not accepted. I am aware of very little popular literature that calls mental mediums Spiritualists unless they are linked to a Spiritualist church. So, to say "...centered on a medium and clients, sitting singly or in a séance" misrepresents the fact that Spiritualism is a system of belief and not the practice of an ability.
I am not sure how to correct this, and I hesitate to do much because of the time constraints and because I think current editors are doing a good job. This is just an observation.
One more point. The NSAC has nine Principles and only conditionally embraces reincarnation. Tom Butler 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with "Developments after the 1920s" section

message: The word fundamentalist is generally not used in articles on religion, since it can be taken as a pejorative Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Fundamentalist. I'm not familiar with the usage of fundamental as a description of religious beliefs, but I assume that it is synonymous with fundamentalist. In addition, the Greater World movement was founded in 1931, which puts it outside the period covered in this article. This edit by User:Bvrly would have been better placed in the article Spiritualist Church. Anthon.Eff 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The word ''fundamental''

message: :"Other prominent believers" could either have more details on some of the names, or perhaps be spun out as a separate article, like "List of spiritualists". Some of the red links could be made into at least stubs, or maybe be changed. "Perhaps the best known of those who combined Swedenborg..." could be more direct, like maybe "Prominent among those who..." Otherwise, solid B, could maybe get GA with a few more references, the changes above, and maybe a few other "cleanup" actions. John Carter 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate "List of spiritualists" article sounds like a good bet.  There are many such useful lists on Wikipedia.  Nihil novi 00:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment comments 

message: In the "Reform-movement links" section, if illustrations can be found for Cora L. V. Scott, Achsa W. Sprague or Paschal Beverly Randolph, I wouldn't object to deleting Mary Todd Lincoln or Frederick Douglass.  That section was looking a bit vacant before (no illustrations).
The other section that could use some illustrations, if we can find them, is "Other mediums."
Nihil novi 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustrations

message: Substituted at 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment